Past COVID infections may help protect against certain colds. Could it lead to better vaccines?

A silver lining of the pandemic is that medical advances related to vaccines have accelerated a lot, covid vaccines have been widely recognized by the experts in public health as a huge success that allowed millions of lives to be saved, but they were just the tip of the iceberg, the technology to develop them is now being used to improve other vaccines and to develop new ones for health problems that could not be prevented or treated specifically before, vaccines targeting whole classes of virus with a single chimeric antigen, that produce a serologic response focused only on IgM without any IgG so immune problems can be skipped.

If only the social aspect of public health advanced as much we would not have to worry as much for the inevitable next pandemic, unfortunately for every professional of public health working to prevent future problems there are 100 people that promote ignorance and antiscientific agendas just for personal benefit.

More research is needed to explain why the immune response in the unvaccinated is more robust than in the fully vaccinated.

They'll never allow it.

More research is needed to explain why the immune response in the unvaccinated is more robust than in the fully vaccinated.

Invalid misrepresentation of the results, the immune response is not more robust as you falsely claim, it is instead more wide, which is understandable since the antigens produced during infection are many, this is explained clearly inside the article.

The purpose of the covid vaccines is to allow the production of specific immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 virus safely and effectively, producing immunity against the common cold was never a priority.

They'll never allow it.

Allow what? explain what is already explained in the article? making up conspiracy theories to explain something that is not happening is both irrational and unnecessary.

Past COVID infections may help protect against certain colds. Could it lead to better vaccines?

Medical experts agree that having had Covid is the same or better to protect against infection than getting 2 shots of the vaccine.

Medical experts agree that having had Covid is the same or better to protect against infection than getting 2 shots of the vaccine.

In fact that is false, medical experts have never made that claim, you did but never could prove the experts said so. In reality vaccines are the much better way to get protection precisely because the protection is obtained without the risks you are trying to protect the people in the first place, the infection comes with the full risks so it defeats the purpose by definition.

It is like saying that amputation is the best way to prevent hand injuries, it is extremely effective, but no medical expert would call it the better way to do it.

And unscientific--not surprising coming from someone not in the field.

Again making baseless claims about other commenters? what evidence do you have about who other people are or what field they work in? without that evidence you can't claim anybody is or not in the field.

This is of course against the rules of the site.

More untested experiments on the people? 

What untested experiments are you talking about? The covid vaccines were fully tested in vitro and in vivo before the full phase I II and III in volunteers, making up things to criticize only means you can't actually find anything to criticize about what really happened. Being brainwashed is more coherent with systematically ignoring the available evidence and just make baseless claims.

The findings the article talks about do raise the possibility of better vaccines with very high probability.

We think there’s going to be a future outbreak of a coronavirus,” said Dr Manish Sagar, senior author of the study published in the journal Science Translational Medicine. “Vaccines potentially could be improved if we could replicate some of the immune responses that are provided by natural infection.”

isn't this what a normal vaccine is supposed to do?

isn't this what a normal vaccine is supposed to do?

In this case "some of the immune responses" is not just replicating any of the many different responses (vaccines already do that to be effective) but instead the specific responses that bring wider immunity without sacrificing efficiency and safety.

Very early on during the pandemic there were studies showing that a considerable percentage of the population already had a certain level of immunity against SARS-CoV2, probably due to past viral infections. So it's not surprising that COVID infections help protect against certain colds.

This could lead to better vaccines; e.g. if they stop using the mRNA-lipid-nanoparticle-based shots and go back to more traditional vaccines, such as inactivated viruses. Or better yet, stop using any vaccines against coronaviruses and instead let our immune system deal with it as it was always meant to. Or even better yet, put an end to the coronavirus gain of function research ...

More research is needed to explain why the immune response in the unvaccinated is more robust than in the fully vaccinated.

They'll never allow it.

Very true! Most Western research authorities are, for some reason, not interested in this. So we must rely on researchers in countries that have not yet been completely captured. Some have clearly shown that the natural immunity is broader, more robust, and longer lasting than that conferred by the shots.

More untested experiments on the people? 

What untested experiments are you talking about?

Well, you might recall when the FDA voted to approve the COVID shots for kids, one of their "experts" (Eric Rubin?) said “we're never going to learn how safe the vaccine is for kids unless we start giving it to them...and so I think we should vote to approve it.”

So they gave the shot an EUA so that they could test it on kids...

This could lead to better vaccines; e.g. if they stop using the mRNA-lipid-nanoparticle-based shots and go back to more traditional vaccines, such as inactivated viruses

The available evidence completely contradicts this, simple antigens (which the inactivated viruses represent) demonstrated being terribly inferior compared with other options, specially mRNA vaccines. China worked very hard to make them work but they were never even comparable to the best available options.

Or better yet, stop using any vaccines against coronaviruses and instead let our immune system deal with it as it was always meant to.

This is a very irresponsible recommendation, vaccines helped saving millions of people, just saying people should die because you feel better letting them die because of the infection because it is something natural do not make it acceptable.

Now with the long term and even permanent health problems resulting from the infection it is even worse, people had much worse outcomes from the infection without the vaccines even if the deaths are ignored.

Very true! Most Western research authorities are, for some reason, not interested in this.

The artcile already explain this, (still not "most robuts" as falsely claimed) there is no need for impossible conspiracies to explain something that is not happening.

Well, you might recall when the FDA voted to approve the COVID shots for kids, one of their "experts" (Eric Rubin?) said “we're never going to learn how safe the vaccine is for kids unless we start giving it to them...and so I think we should vote to approve it.”

And that has absolutely nothing negative about it, the important thing was already understood, and that is that vaccines are much much safer than the infection for children, what was yet to be found what how much safer, and the evidence collected proves vaccinating children protected them from a lot of unexpected health risks from covid, from immune chaos to brain development problems.

So no, not "testing on kids" it was already proved to be safe and effective at protecting them, we just did not know how important that protection was until covid became the first cause of death for them.

Still no argument, just baseless accusations and insults maybe because of the frustration of not being able to defend a point so easily proved mistaken.

What do you think you accomplish by breaking the rules of the site? apart from proving you don't have a point.

I have had seven Covid vaccinations, I had Covid, twice, and I have been sick with a cold since April. I won the trifecta.

I had zero Covid shots (and no flu shots). I had a mild Covid once and no colds since the start of the pandemic...

I had three Pfizer shots, no covid 19 and no cold since either. There, proven.

I had zero Covid shots (and no flu shots). I had a mild Covid once and no colds since the start of the pandemic

Statistically this still means a higher risk of long term problems (including shrinking of the brain and loss of mental capacity).

“A silver lining of the pandemic….. ”….

I think the only silver lining that came out of the pandemic is lest trust in government, the media and big pharma, all of which revolve more around profit rather than the interests of the people at large.

virusrex

A silver lining of the pandemic is that medical advances related to vaccines have accelerated a lot, covid vaccines have been widely recognized by the experts in public health as a huge success that

Seems to me the only "silver lining" is for pharma industry, which now wants to use the mRNA platform for all sorts of profitable new vaccines, which comes with all sorts of problems for the recipients.

“A silver lining of the pandemic….. ”….

I think the only silver lining that came out of the pandemic is lest trust in government, the media and big pharma, all of which revolve more around profit rather than the interests of the people at large.

Yes, exactly. They certainly have exposed themselves. Now, many more people are taking their health into their own hands rather than blindly obeying the captured health authorities and governments.

I think the only silver lining that came out of the pandemic is lest trust in government, the media and big pharma, all of which revolve more around profit rather than the interests of the people at large.

The opposite, public health professionals in general qualify the interventions done as extremely successful and preventing millions of deaths, the opposition come from the same fringe groups that oppose scientific advance and conclusions in general (from nutrition to climate change) they are now recognized as systematically antiscientific and not worth of any kind of trust, pushing for the "need" for people to accept deaths and disabilities to oppose medical interventions they don't like is not as good an appeal as they think.

Seems to me the only "silver lining" is for pharma industry

But that comes because of a personal antiscientific bias, interventions that have demonstrated being useful include dirt cheap medications and things that in no way benefit any pharmaceutical industry (like isolation and hygienic measures) are also part of what is recognized as effective, no global conspiracy to explain this success, in fact it contradicts most of them as illogical. Not to mention that one benefit that may come to fruit runs completely against the interests of companies, which is why they are using antivaxxer propaganda groups to pretend global commitments that would hurt their profits are bad and opposed by the people that benefit from them, that is not fooling anyone.

Yes, exactly

Actually the opposite, the antiscience groups are the ones exposing themselves and governments that used the fallacies to benefit the companies against the interests of public health are the ones being proved heavily inadequate, studies proving the huge cost in lives of opposing vaccines and isolation measures have been published and the people in charge being recognized scientifically as responsible for millions of deaths.