Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 712 posts

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#561

Post by krona »

russholmes wrote: post #542
krona wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a summary of at least 6 articles on pre existing t-cell immunity. https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563 Furthermore, I know of at least 3 leading statisticians that hypothesized (very early on) that the variance of infection trends pointed to pre-existing immunity in various populations. The evidence supporting this is mounting.

The BMJ is not a credible source, it is the Daily Mail of medical journals. The author of that article, Peter Doshi, has form: "I think the first thing we to review is who is Peter Doshi? And why is he so insistent on getting this data? Peter Doshi received his BA in anthropology from Brown University, MA in East Asian studies from Harvard University, and Ph.D. in history, anthropology, and science, technology and so…

I didn't cite the BMJ as the source, but nice try. The sources include Cell and Nature, but unfortunately for you that might mean having to read something in order to discount it, which you seem unprepared for.

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#562

Post by TillE »

iamatworknow wrote: post #491
Contax wrote: post #475

TIL about the "jab" word in this context (English is not my first language). I thought the author had misspelled "lab".

I'm a native English speaker (American) and have thought it was odd for a few weeks that Reuters in particular likes to use the word "jab" for "vaccination". It's not commonly used that way in the US.

It's extremely weird until you remember the American equivalent is "shot".

I think the British media goes for the colloquial version a bit more, but it's hard to say for sure.

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#563

Post by krona »

krona wrote: post #337
wbl wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a credible source? I've heard these claims multiple times and they done seem to be borne out by events or supported by repudiable epidemiologist.

Here is a summary of at least 6 articles on pre existing t-cell immunity. https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563 Furthermore, I know of at least 3 leading statisticians that hypothesized (very early on) that the variance of infection trends pointed to pre-existing immunity in various populations. The evidence supporting this is mounting.

For the lazy (cited 556 times as of now): https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30610-3.pdf

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#564

Post by porkbrain »

cwhiz wrote: post #418

Can someone explain to me why double blind is necessary or useful for a vaccine trial such as this? It seems obvious to me on something like a pain medicine, but on a vaccine it seem a pointless. Is placebo an actual issue with a vaccine? It honestly seems borderline unethical to give people a placebo vaccine.

You might like Greg Egan's short story "Blood sisters" which addresses exactly this topic. It's one of the short stories in the book "Axiomatic".

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#566

Post by Polylactic_acid »

cwhiz wrote: post #436
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who know they've been vaccinated will behave more recklessly than people who haven't been vaccinated. You need to have a control group, in order to assess the efficacy (and safety) of the vaccine. If the control group is wearing masks and socially distancing, but the vaccinated group is going partying at bars and clubs every night, then comparisons of how often each group gets infected won't have much meaning.…

What you’re describing as “reckless behavior” is just normal behavior in a non-covid world. If vaccine candidates are social distancing, wearing masks, and staying home how will the researchers get the data they need? If you are following “covid best practices” it is extremely unlikely that you will contract covid. Would the researchers not want people to go out and live their normal lives?

The researchers only need a group that acts in the same way as the test subjects. Plenty of people will still catch covid while being careful.

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#567

Post by mikeyouse »

breakfastduck wrote: post #338
vaughnegut wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine in public health mentioned to me that it's not uncommon for second waves of epidemics to be less deadly, since many of the people most vulnerable to the disease would have already passed away during the first wave.

I mean, that's just common sense, and something the media is actively choosing not to raise.

This idea that the "Media" is this sinister entity trying to stop the spread of good news during a pandemic which the entire world has taken drastic steps to curtail yet which has still killed over 1.1 million people is just so silly.

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#569

Post by comfydragon »

garmaine wrote: post #322
LandR wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so it seems like a lot of those people would know. You can tell the difference in getting a vaccine shot and a shot of saline?

You ever gotten a flu shot? Usually your arm hurts for a day or two after, even if there are no other symptoms. This is a side effect of the immune response, as your body fights the "infection" at the point of injection.

And here I've thought the sore arm was your body reacting to a hypodermic needle going into your upper arm muscles. I suppose it could be a little of both though?

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#570

Post by irq11 »

ffdjjjffjj wrote: post #403
breakfastduck wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Daily new cases means nothing - it's a completely artificial figure that can be inflated or deflated by simply changing how many tests are conducted. Deaths is the only relevant measure.

It doesn’t “mean nothing”, it’s another data point. If you see test positivity rate remaining low but cases increasing - which we do in many areas with sufficient testing - then it does suggest more people are getting the virus. You can also corroborate this by comparing it to new hospitalizations, which are also up. “Deaths is the only relevant measure” - not sure where to start with this except to say that this is…

” If you see test positivity rate remaining low but cases increasing - which we do in many areas with sufficient testing - then it does suggest more people are getting the virus.”

No, it suggests that you’re doing more testing, and finding more cases. Which, exactly as the OP said, is a metric that can be manipulated by doing more testing.

The whole reason we emphasize positivity rate is to try to compensate for the inherent bias in reporting raw case counts.

There have been far more cases than we have ever formally detected with testing. There’s plenty of room to increase that number by testing more people, but it will not affect hospitalizations or deaths - which is exactly what we’re seeing.

Post reply on HN