IT may have slipped from the headlines, but Covid certainly hasn’t disappeared from circulation.
By the first week of February, an estimated one in 55 people in Scotland were infected - equivalent to 1.8 per cent of the population.
Prevalence of the virus has been fairly stable since the beginning of August last year, with infection rates see-sawing between roughly 2-4% at any one time.
READ MORE: Never had Covid? The secret might lie in your genes
That is much higher than it ever was pre-2022, but comparatively low versus the Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 waves seen in the first half of last year when nearly 10% of Scots had Covid at a peak in mid-March.
Omicron continues to dominate, but with an ever-expanding proliferation of sub-lineages: more than half of cases in the UK are now being caused by either the XBB (including the so-called XBB1.5 ‘Kraken’) or C.H.1.1 (nicknamed ‘Orthus’) strains of the variant.
Both appear to have mutations which enable them to bind to cells even more easily and dodge antibodies, giving them a transmission advantage.
There is no evidence that they cause more severe disease, however, and vaccines continue to provide strong protection against hospitalisation and death - as, it appears, do prior infections.
The current Covid backdrop comes as the most comprehensive study to date has investigated to what extent prior exposure to the virus defends against subsequent Covid illness.
It has to be stressed that scientists are not proposing natural immunity as an alternative, or equal, to vaccination - the latter is by far the safest way to build protection - but the study, published in the Lancet, provides useful insight, particularly given that most under-50s are not currently eligible for any additional booster shots and the likelihood of repeat exposure is high.
The meta-analysis pulls together data from 65 studies in 19 countries - including Scotland - to evaluate for the first time how well, and for how long, a Covid infection protects against reinfection and severe disease (hospitalisation and death) from subsequent bouts across different variants.
Studies examining natural immunity in combination with vaccination (“hybrid immunity”) were excluded, meaning that the risk related specifically to unvaccinated individuals.
READ MORE: Why Covid reinfections could be a bigger problem than expected
Researchers found that the level and duration of protection against reinfection, symptomatic disease and severe illness is "at least on a par with that provided by two doses of the mRNA vaccines" (Moderna, Pfizer-BioNtech) in relation to the “ancestral” form of the Covid virus (the original strain which emerged from China in late 2019) and the subsequently dominant Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants.
The analysis does not cover the more recent forms of the virus from Omicron BA.2 up to the current XBB or C.H.1.1 strains.
Collating the findings of 21 studies reporting on pre-Omicron variants, the scientists estimated that protection against reinfection had fallen slowly from around 85% at one month post-infection to 79% after ten months.
For people infected with one of the pre-Omicron variants (typically Delta) who were then exposed to Omicron BA.1 when that wave took off towards the end of 2021, protection against reinfection was lower: 74% at one month and declining more rapidly to 36% ten months on.
This ability of Omicron to cause reinfections within a short period is at least part of the reason why the virus has remained at such stubbornly high rates over the past year (along, of course, with the absence of nearly any mitigations to slow its spread).
In relation to severe disease, however, protection was much more robust.
An analysis of five studies found that a prior infection considerably reduced the probability of hospitalisation and death for 10 months regardless of the variant: 90% for the ancestral, Alpha, and Delta strains, and 88% for the Omicron BA.1 variant.
In other words, for an unvaccinated person previously infected with Covid-19, their risk of being hospitalised or dying as a result of Covid was 88% lower 10 months on compared to an unvaccinated person who had never had a Covid infection.
READ MORE: Obesity, deprivation, women - and the surprising cost of 'being too fat'
None of this means that we could have foregone mass vaccination in favour of herd immunity.
As lead author, Dr Stephen Lim, of the University of Washington School of Medicine, notes: “Acquiring natural immunity must be weighed against the risks of severe disease and death associated with the initial infection.”
Reports of huge death tolls in China during the recent wave are a warning of what is at stake when you try to open up a society to Covid without high levels of vaccine protection, particularly among the elderly.
It is at least a reminder, however, of the way the human immune system has evolved over millions of years to manage virus threats.
Separate research by Edinburgh University into Covid in Zimbabwe - also published this week, in the journal Lancet Microbe - suggests that a higher prevalence of common cold viruses in Africa may have helped to curb the continent’s death toll from the disease.
To date, Africa has reported 180 Covid deaths per million compared to 2,720 per million in Europe, despite high incidence and lower vaccination rates.
While its warmer climate and more youthful population will have been important, scientists believe that the population may have also benefitted from higher levels of “cross-reactive immunity” - antibodies accumulated in their blood in the years before the pandemic as a result of regular contact with other coronaviruses which circulate at higher levels in Africa compared to other parts of the world.
It is thought that some of these antibodies, produced in response to pre-existing coronaviruses, were also able to defend against the distinctive “spike protein” found in Covid.
The same phenomenon (prior exposure to other coronaviruses) is believed to explain why some people have been less likely than others to catch Covid even in highly vaccinated counties such as Scotland.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel