You are asking what website is that? - do you mean the one I posted a link to in the post, and named as "the British Society for Immunology"?
There is nothing in your linked article that supports your proposition - the parts that mention immunity state
Quote:
You get a broader immune response after being infected with the virus than vaccination.
Whether you've had Moderna or Pfizer or Oxford-AstraZeneca, your body is learning to spot just one thing - the spike protein.
This is the critical part of the virus to make antibodies to, and the results - by keeping most out of hospital - have been spectacular.
But having the other 28 proteins to target too, would give T-cells far more to go at.
"That means if you had a real humdinger of an infection, you may have better immunity to any new variants that pop up as you have immunity to more than just spike," said Prof Riley.
|
So you have had to have had a serious bout of COVID to have "better" immunity (which is what the "immune response" section on the image in my post said) - only two problems with that; 1) if you have a serious bout of COVID, you’ve probably been hospitalised (with the concomitant risk of death), and 2), as you have frequently stated, most people who catch it only have a mild case. As the article states
Quote:
|
there is a huge gulf in antibodies between those who are asymptomatic (who don't make very much) and those who get a severe bout of Covid.
|
You can’t have it both ways - if people have had a mild case, they won’t have "better" immunity.
btw, this is a recent
tweet from Professor Finn (one of the Profs mentioned in the BBC article).
Quote:
Adam Finn
@adamhfinn
Masterful explanation of the uncertainties ahead. But one thing’s for sure, the more people get vaccinated the better things will be. The decision is not hard given what we know - it’s a:“the boat is sinking, shall I put on this life jacket?” type decision
|