Live data from Hacker News

Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

medrxiv.org

141–150 of 361 posts

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

#141
post #110
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.

Aren't pcr tests notoriously unreliable? Maybe you didn't have it first time?

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

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have been, and will continue to be, coerced (as you put it) every day of your life. For good reason.

What a sad way of looking at life. We used to have "if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you too?", talk about people as sheep, and generally look down on people giving in to peer pressure. Now it seems to be a badge of honor, or at least a popular opinion, amongst educated people, to lean in to being part of a herd. Doing stuff because it makes sense is one thing, but praising the abstract act of being pee…

There's all kinds of things we don't do because of social pressure and legal constraints (that are there, in general, because in aggregate they make sense).

I close my mouth when I chew because of social pressure.

Someone might choose not to pick their nose in public because of social pressure.

Someone else might put the toilet seat down because of social pressure.

The amount of time I spend changing lanes before a turn is because of social pressure.

And yet someone else may not take the last helping of a treat because of social pressure.

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

#143
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..."

Do you mean tested for antibodies with finger prick blood test, or PCR random number generator (see elon musk wild PCR results).

I was sick, had test that showed antibodies, and a confirmation letter from my Dr.

Since the EUA to rush out the vaccines does not include those who had it and recovered, it needs more testing and study before it is approved for those who have antibodies. The jab is not risk-free.

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

#144

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…

"Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study." The duration of the study being 5 months. There's no indication from this study what would happen after 5 months.

why the downvotes on this comment? iirc the vaccine response was shown to diminish over time and health experts discussed the potential need for covid vaccine booster shots. a limited timeframe for reinfection poses an issue considering we may never be truly done with this disease as it could recirculate and require frequent shots like the flu

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

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are essentially zero false positives with the PCR test. Only through sample contamination.

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

#146
post #28

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.

Why did you get vaccinated if you had it?

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

#147
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hey I'm curious, if you don't mind sharing, how do you think you got it? Throughout this whole pandemic, I'm still kind of amazed how people are getting it

We bought a house and were constantly at Home Depot, where my wife thinks she caught it.

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

#148

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.

> 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…

> They refuse to get vaccinated because they refuse to consider how their actions might actually impact someone else.

They've considered it, they just don't care. What they actually care more about is the insinuation that they should care at all.

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

#149
post #128

Why is it that so many people seem to be biased against evidence that our immune systems do a pretty good job? It's as if they want the vaccine to be the only thing that helps stop COVID.

Our immune systems are pretty amazing. It's also good to help them along sometimes.

That does not conflict with being unbiased towards evidence that our immune systems are effective against covid.

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

#150
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.

> Most authorities are downplaying natural immunity, despite evidence like this.

OK, I think I can agree with this, I've seen lots of "getting the vaccine provides much better immunity than getting Covid"-type statements that seemed more like conjecture.

> 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.

Is this a serious statement? The problem isn't that natural immunity doesn't keep make you immune, the problem is that "acquiring natural immunity" often results in death, especially for vulnerable populations.

Post reply on HN