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

Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

medrxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 361 posts

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#31

Post by OJFord »

msandford wrote: post #5
reducesuffering wrote: post #2

Punchline: “The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained u…

In that case it seems like the headline reads wrong based on a colloquial and imprecise but often correct heuristic. Should read more like "non-necessity of C19 vaccination for previously infected..."

It says (at least, it does now, as I write) 'evaluating necessity'.

[EDIT: I read further down this page, dang commented that he'd edited in the 'evaluating' just 1m before parent's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27453952 So, yes, fair enough, 'necessity of' is ambiguous, as I went on to say in my original comment continuing below.]

Necessity is the concept as well as describing one possible state of it.

Another example: when 'my hunger is sated', I do not 'have a hunger', I am 'not hungry'.

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#32

Post by stephc_int13 »

Taniwha wrote: post #16
reducesuffering wrote: post #2

Punchline: “The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained u…

However there already exist real people in the world who have had Covid twice, and who reportedly have had a much tougher time the second time around. This study helps us put some bounds on how many people this might happen to (assuming there are no mutations to the virus) but it doesn't rule it out completely, because of the prior existence proofs

I got covid twice.

10 months separated the first and the second infections.

Both were mild, the second was worse (English variant).

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#33

Post by takeda »

rolph wrote: post #3

this is a bit ambiguous in title. This is about vaccination not providing any further benefit to those who have recovered and cleared from covid. this is ^not^ saying you need to be vaccinated even if you have gone through covid

On the other hand this says the opposite: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4?...

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#35

Post by akomtu »

tomp wrote: post #9
mlyle wrote: post #8

Note this is to inform public health / prioritization in the short term. (Which is less necessary places like the US where there is excess vaccine supply). We know that past infection greatly reduces risk (and this helps quantify it). At the same time, vaccination is thought to cause a much broader and more durable immune response than natural infection. We'd like people who were previously infected to get vaccinated…

> vaccination is thought to cause a much broader and more durable immune response than natural infection Why? Is there any data to support this assertion? If anything, being ill (symptomatic) means the viral load was high in the body, so the immune system response should be as well, and in addition, infection should cause the immune system to produce antibodies to all parts of the virus, not just the spike protein, a…

If there was evidence, that "is thought to" would've been replaced with "is proven to".

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#36

Post by version_five »

stickfigure wrote: post #23
Taniwha wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However there already exist real people in the world who have had Covid twice, and who reportedly have had a much tougher time the second time around. This study helps us put some bounds on how many people this might happen to (assuming there are no mutations to the virus) but it doesn't rule it out completely, because of the prior existence proofs

Health policy is determined by probabilities, not possibilities.

Health policy (not uniquely) is determined in large measure by politics.

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#37

Post by onionisafruit »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #32
Taniwha wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However there already exist real people in the world who have had Covid twice, and who reportedly have had a much tougher time the second time around. This study helps us put some bounds on how many people this might happen to (assuming there are no mutations to the virus) but it doesn't rule it out completely, because of the prior existence proofs

I got covid twice. 10 months separated the first and the second infections. Both were mild, the second was worse (English variant).

Now I know two things about you: 1. you got covid twice 2. you weren't part of this study

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#38

Post by rolph »

stavros wrote: post #28
reducesuffering wrote: post #2

Punchline: “The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained u…

That's encouraging! I got COVID a few months ago and got vaccinated recently, seems like I should be unstoppable now.

i wouldnot call it unstoppable, but i would expect excellent protection, that extends horizontally to provide an unspecified degree of protection across variants.

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#39

Post by symlinkk »

epgui wrote: post #21

Any other result would have been surprising. Why is this interesting, beyond just confirming what we were already 99.99% certain we knew? -- biochemist

Because openly stating this obvious fact would get you downvoted on here a few months ago.

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#40

Post by OJFord »

epgui wrote: post #21

Any other result would have been surprising. Why is this interesting, beyond just confirming what we were already 99.99% certain we knew? -- biochemist

Because it's not public health policy anywhere that I'm aware of? But vaccine rollout would be way quicker, and 'positive test or vaccinated' proportion of populations would be way higher, and that would influence discussion of other aspects, like 'herd immunity' for example.
Post reply on HN