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

121–130 of 361 posts

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

#121

Post by briefcomment »

rectang wrote: post #107
briefcomment wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 immun…

I'm talking about those who have recovered when I say natural immunity, not all unvaccinated.

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

#124

Post by BelenusMordred »

OJFord wrote: post #40
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.

Many EU countries will take either proof of prior infection, a vaccine cert, or PCR test for international arrivals. It's very much public policy for some.

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

#125

Post by lukeschlather »

handmodel wrote: post #52
OJFord wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My one anti-vax friend (who I make fun of constantly for not getting it) is constantly bombarded with people telling him that his previous infection doesn't give him any immunity. I already knew that was false - and I think he knew that too. It probably fed into his (motivated) reasoning to hold out this long if people are telling him so much information they know to be untrue. Still, I don't see how public health wo…

How do you know your anti-vax friend was actually infected? I think a very real risk is that people decide they don't need the vaccine based on false-positive tests or otherwise mis-diagnosed illness.

This study appears to be based on following up with a single hospital's own database of people who tested positive. But I imagine you would get different results if you just found a bunch of people and asked them to self-report their prior infection status before enrolling them in the study.

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

#126

Post by lootsauce »

tomerico wrote: post #19
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

If this is rare enough, it could fall into the false positive rate of the COVID test they've previously done (i.e. while the test said they had COVID, they didn't)

The tests are designed to have high false positives because they have to bias toward few false negatives and there are no perfect tests. What gets me is that the negative result is the one bearing meaningful information but not the positive result, yet everyone mistakenly talks about positives as if they are far more informative than they actually are.

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

#127

Post by SkyPuncher »

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.

> to not blanket demonize those who are unvaccinated.

Well, I'm currently in quarantine from my 4 month old and wife because an acquaintance refused to get vaccinated. "young people don't die from COVID" type mentality.

I attended my brother's bachelor party - of which we all thought everyone was vaccinated. Turns out this person, not only refused to get vaccinated - but had COVID exposure and still decided to attend. He told us the day after being in close contact for 3 days, that he tested positive and had symptoms during our contact with him.

Of the unvaccinated people I know, this mentality is the large majority of them. They refuse to get vaccinated because they refuse to consider how their actions might actually impact someone else.

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

#130

Post by trimbo »

vmception wrote: post #117
trimbo wrote: post #7

I have confirmation bias here because this is a result I would have expected BUT.. Preprint, non-peer reviewed.

well pack it up boys, lets not make this go viral on social media and just hope the "peers" organically pick this study to review over the next 6 months instead of some other study that appears to be more in the public interest and has more popular people behind it a while back I looked to see how long it actually took for the peer reviewed studies to come out for previous diseases and outbreaks, such as SARS 1. It w…

This study backs up the claim that people who had it don't need to get vaccinated. If it gets widely reported, that probably means fewer people will get vaccinated.

So let me ask you this, what's the worst case scenario if they're right but had waited 6 months to get it reviewed? Then consider, what's the worst case scenario if they're wrong?

Post reply on HN