Since the coronavirus vaccines were approved by the Food and Drug Administration last December, some have suggested that they were unnecessary for those who have …
Since the coronavirus vaccines were approved by the Food and Drug Administration last December, some have suggested that they were unnecessary for those who have already had COVID-19, arguing that “natural immunity” was more effective than immunity granted by vaccines. Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who had COVID-19 last year, suggested in February that “naturally acquired” cases were 99.9982% effective against reinfection, a number greater than the protection rates offered by the three authorized vaccines. But at this point, experts say, we do not definitively know whether infection or a vaccine provides a stronger response. Most initial studies have suggested that while “natural immunity” does offer a strong response, vaccines may provide an even stronger one. And even though immunity built after contracting the virus may be quite robust at first, it is impossible to know the exact level of protection it provides and could even decrease over time, Dr. William Hanage, an associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Nobody knows exactly how protected they are. Immunity varies from person to person, and wanes somewhat over time. Reinfection is certainly possible,” Hanage said, adding that after about eight months it may decrease to a point that permits reinfection in approximately 10% of people. Even though experts are not exactly sure how long immunity lasts from a vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control still recommends it, since vaccines, at the very least, offer protection without the risk of long-term health complications or death from the virus itself.
