Differential protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection pre- and post-Omicron
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly evolved over short timescales, leading to the emergence of more transmissible variants such as Alpha and Delta1–3. The arrival of the Omicron variant marked a major shift, introducing numerous extra mutations in the spike gene compared with earlier variants1,2. These evolutionary changes have raised concerns regarding their potential impact on immune evasion, disease severity and the effectiveness of vaccines and treatments1,3. In this epidemiological study, we identified two distinct patterns in the protective effect of natural infection against reinfection in the Omicron versus pre-Omicron eras. Before Omicron, natural infection provided strong and durable protection against reinfection, with minimal waning over time. However, during the Omicron era, protection was robust only for those recently infected, declining rapidly over time and diminishing within a year. These results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 immune protection is shaped by a dynamic interaction between host immunity and viral evolution, leading to contrasting reinfection patterns before and after Omicron’s first wave. This shift in patterns suggests a change in evolutionary pressures, with intrinsic transmissibility driving adaptation pre-Omicron and immune escape becoming dominant post-Omicron, underscoring the need for periodic vaccine updates to sustain immunity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".