Sorry, a Coronavirus Infection Might Not Be Enough to Protect You
Immune cells can learn the vagaries of a particular infectious disease in two main ways. The first is bona fide infection, and it’s a lot like being schooled in a war zone, where any lesson in protection might come at a terrible cost. Vaccines, by contrast, safely introduce immune cells to only the harmless mimic of a microbe, the immunological equivalent of training guards to recognize invaders before they ever show their face. The first option might be more instructive and immersive—it is, after all, the real thing. But the second has a major advantage: It provides crucial intel in the absence of risk.
Some pathogens aren’t memorable to the body, no matter the form in which they’re introduced. But with SARS-CoV-2, we’ve been lucky: Both inoculation and infection can marshal stellar protection. Past tussles with the virus, in fact, seem so immunologically instructive that in many places, including several nations in the European Union, Israel, and the United Kingdom, they can grant access to restaurants, bars, and travel hubs galore, just as full vaccination does.
In the United States, conversely, can wield the social currency that immunity affords. The policy has repeatedly come into , especially as the country barrels forward with plans for boosters and vaccination mandates No one, it seems, can agree on the immunological —whether a past infection can sub in for one inoculation or two inoculations, or more, or none at all—or just how much immunity counts as “enough.”
