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

101–110 of 361 posts

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

#101

Post by phkahler »

spion wrote: post #88
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…

I know that seems like a large number but in the vaccine arm there were 20x more subjects and only 15 cases. So with the 1359 previously infected subjects, assuming identical behavior to vaccinated subjects, we would expect around 0.9 cases if vaccines were approximately equal to infection. So this study doesn't have enough statistical power to say how vaccines compare to previous infection. Could be better, could be…

>> So this study doesn't have enough statistical power to say how vaccines compare to previous infection. Could be better, could be up to 3 times worse within a high confidence interval.

Could be. But it would be great if they'd just say having had a confirmed case is equivalent to getting the vaccine because several studies have now shown that to be roughly the case. It's also conventional medical wisdom although it varies by virus.

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

#102

Post by AndrewBissell »

ceejayoz wrote: post #89
unanswered wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And until the studies happen there is no danger? The studies create the danger? Or may we behave like rational individuals and realize that "zero danger" is a political talking point which is fully debunked by the VAERS data?

VAERS is user-generated content. I can go in there and file a report that I grew a third arm after vaccination and it'll go in. Dying or having an adverse event after vaccination also isn't the same as dying from vaccination; even the genuine VAERS reports don't permit teasing this wrinkle out on their own.

> I can go in there and file a report that I grew a third arm after vaccination and it'll go in.

And you'd be committing a felony. I see this idea tossed around all the time that tons of the reports coming in are fake, but so far have seen scant evidence that that's the case.

> Dying or having an adverse event after vaccination also isn't the same as dying from vaccination; even the genuine VAERS reports don't permit teasing this wrinkle out on their own.

Okay, but then why are so many more people reporting dying after Covid-19 vaccination than have reported dying after flu shots which have been administered to millions of people for decades?

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

#103

Post by phkahler »

refurb wrote: post #100
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…

I don’t see it in the abstract, but what was the infection rate for the unvaccinated? That’s your comparison. They also mentioned 0 infections in fully vaccinated which is odd as other countries are seeing a number of infections in their vaccinated front line workers. https://twitter.com/sporeMOH/status/1402637555263098884?s=20

>> They also mentioned 0 infections in fully vaccinated which is odd as other countries are seeing a number of infections in their vaccinated front line workers.

No, they had infections in the vaccinated. They had 0 infections in the previously infected, although another poster pointed out that the vaccinated (but never infected) group is much larger than the unvaccinated but previously exposed.

Frankly since the vaccine trains the immune system on the spike proteins I would think they're roughly equivalent and either both will offer similar duration of protection. If that turns out to be only a year I'm going for the vaccine next time, as the infection kinda sucked.

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

#104

Post by ceejayoz »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #102
ceejayoz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VAERS is user-generated content. I can go in there and file a report that I grew a third arm after vaccination and it'll go in. Dying or having an adverse event after vaccination also isn't the same as dying from vaccination; even the genuine VAERS reports don't permit teasing this wrinkle out on their own.

> I can go in there and file a report that I grew a third arm after vaccination and it'll go in. And you'd be committing a felony. I see this idea tossed around all the time that tons of the reports coming in are fake, but so far have seen scant evidence that that's the case. > Dying or having an adverse event after vaccination also isn't the same as dying from vaccination; even the genuine VAERS reports don't permit…

What felony?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/11/bill-zedle...

> In a July 2005 web post, Dr. James R. Laidler wrote: "The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database.

> "Because the reported adverse event was so… unusual," Laidler wrote, "a representative of VAERS contacted me. After a discussion of the VAERS database and its limitations, they asked for my permission to delete the record, which I granted. If I had not agreed, the record would be there still, showing that any claim can become part of the database, no matter how outrageous or improbable."

As for your question about the numbers:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/may/03/vaers-governm...

> Moss explained one way VAERS can amplify fears about the COVID-19 vaccine in particular. Most vaccinations are given to a small segment of the population: young, healthy children, who are generally less likely to have health problems afterward. But the COVID-19 vaccine is given to a much larger group — all Americans 16 and older are eligible now. And the earliest recipients included a large number of elderly patients and adults with preexisting health problems.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-vaers/fact-chec...

> “To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.”

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

#105

Post by rriepe »

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

There's a bunch of hidden social rules around commenting on immunity because the last big pandemic was HIV.

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

#106

Post by Sebb767 »

handmodel wrote: post #82
epgui wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in theory that would be the obvious advantage. In practice, don't underestimate how much more inefficient or troublesome a seemingly simple additional rule or exception might be to administer... :P

That's my thing. Plenty of people who know they almost certainly had Covid weren't tested, some were tested with tests that were experimental, etc. And while trying to predict second-order behavior effects is tricky either way it is pretty clear that saying "don't get the vaccine if you already had Covid" would scare some people away.

> Plenty of people who know they almost certainly had Covid weren't tested

I had quite the opposite experience ; plenty of people told me they had (mild) flu symptoms - a lot of TMI, to be honest - and assumed they had had COVID already. It later turned out, with no exception, that they absolutely did not.

Scaring those people away would probably hurt a lot, at least in my anecdotal experience.

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

#107

Post by rectang »

briefcomment wrote: post #96
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

Most authorities are downplaying natural immunity, despite evidence like this. The more widely this spreads, the more people will realize it's ok to rely on natural immunity, and to not blanket demonize those who are unvaccinated.

The unvaccinated are still vectors for the infection of those who cannot be vaccinated, such as the immunocompromised. I personally don't think in terms of "blanked demonizing" people, but neither am I going to blanket-absolve all the unvaccinated — especially willful anti-vaxxers.

Regardless, this study is good news — because it means that every person who is infected and then recovers contributes towards herd immunity, regardless of their outlook on vaccines.

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

#108

Post by StavrosK »

Panther34543 wrote: post #90
StavrosK wrote: post #34

What's up with all the antivaxxer/COVID hoaxer comments lately? Every COVID-related thread seems to be at least half-full of antivaxxer comments, and that's being optimistic.

I dislike when my own comments within a discussion are not considered in good faith, so I'll extend you the courtesy I often wish was extended to me: Why do you believe that confirming suspected immunity response and subsequent protection, as is the case with so many other diseases, is in any way connected to the belief that COVID is a hoax?

Huh? That's not at all what I said. When I posted that, half the comments section were comments like this one:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27454154

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

#109

Post by cuchoi »

briefcomment wrote: post #96
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

Most authorities are downplaying natural immunity, despite evidence like this. The more widely this spreads, the more people will realize it's ok to rely on natural immunity, and to not blanket demonize those who are unvaccinated.

My wife and I got COVID twice 9 months apart last year. The second time my wife ended up in the hospital.

We both got vaccinated as soon as we could.

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

#110

Post by cuchoi »

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

What made you 99.99% before reading this? I have seen plenty of experts saying that they don't know how long immunity will last.

Anecdotal data: my wife and I got COVID twice 9 months apart last year. The second time my wife ended up in the hospital.

Post reply on HN