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

211–220 of 361 posts

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

#211

Post by Reason077 »

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…

What was the duration of the study?

I’m convinced I had Covid twice, in March 2020 and again in December 2020. So in my case, “natural” immunity did not last 9 months. (Although there were presumably different Covid variants at play here. I’m in London where the “Kent” variant was dominant in the December peak)

Only the second time was confirmed by PCR test (no testing available in March 2020), but symptoms and progression were nearly identical both times.

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

#212

Post by TacticalCoder »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #43
np_tedious wrote: post #11

I did have covid (not diagnosed while active but shown in antibody test), and I got vaccinated significantly later. This was not driven by belief in medical need, but by social/rules need. You get no "points" for being recovered like you do for a proof of vaccination.

For the EU certificate, proof of prior infection can be used, although I believe you need a positive PCR test for that, an antibody test is not sufficient.

> ... although I believe you need a positive PCR test for that, an antibody test is not sufficient.

Most countries in the EU just relaxed the requirements to travel before the summer vacations. You don't need a PCR test anymore to travel: just an antibody test (at least for Spain / France / Belgium but I take it many others are doing the same). And there's no requirement to be vaccinated.

They also raised the age at which you need a test from 6 to 12 years old.

Source: always living/traveling across France/Belgium/Spain.

Fun fact: when you travel by car in the EU they typically do not bother to check. You can cross several countries and they're not verifying anything. Another fun thing: test is supposed to be less than 72 hours old, so if you're traveling over more than 3 days, you need to get re-tested during your trip.

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

#213

Post by gcbirzan »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #212
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the EU certificate, proof of prior infection can be used, although I believe you need a positive PCR test for that, an antibody test is not sufficient.

> ... although I believe you need a positive PCR test for that, an antibody test is not sufficient. Most countries in the EU just relaxed the requirements to travel before the summer vacations. You don't need a PCR test anymore to travel: just an antibody test (at least for Spain / France / Belgium but I take it many others are doing the same). And there's no requirement to be vaccinated. They also raised the age at…

The DGC doesn't have any such type of certificate, so there's that (which, obviously, doesn't mean countries cannot accept antibody tests). As for the traveling, that's weird, as I thought most countries exempt you from needing a test if you're just transiting.

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

#214

Post by Sleepytime »

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…

The vaccinated are still vectors for the infection of those who cannot be vaccinated.

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

#215

Post by khazhoux »

Causality1 wrote: post #174
waterside81 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I caught it from sharing a thirty minute meal with an in-law who didn't divulge that she had attended a party and had woken up coughing that day.

"It's just a cough, couldn't possibly be the respiratory disease that's defined the planet for the last year."

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

#216

Post by ping_pong »

Reason077 wrote: post #211
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…

What was the duration of the study? I’m convinced I had Covid twice, in March 2020 and again in December 2020. So in my case, “natural” immunity did not last 9 months. (Although there were presumably different Covid variants at play here. I’m in London where the “Kent” variant was dominant in the December peak) Only the second time was confirmed by PCR test (no testing available in March 2020), but symptoms and progr…

A lot of people were convinced they had COVID in Jan-March 2020. You're not the only one. Without a test though, it's impossible to say because the symptoms of mild COVID, which it sounds like you had, overlap a very large number of other diseases. There was also a very bad flu going around in early 2020 that a lot of people had caught so you probably had that.

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

#217

Post by ping_pong »

Causality1 wrote: post #174
waterside81 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I caught it from sharing a thirty minute meal with an in-law who didn't divulge that she had attended a party and had woken up coughing that day.

Was she coughing when you met her, or had that symptom subsided?

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

#218

Post by AndrewBissell »

ceejayoz wrote: post #104
AndrewBissell wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Do you look at anything other than factchecks? Taken right from the VAERS website (in bold font, no less): "Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment." A single case of a doctor submitting a goofy report in 2005 (and even having the CDC follow up with him!) doesn't establish a widespread pattern. Has even a single such incident been reported with the Covid VAERS submissions? I have to imagine the media would be keen to trumpet it, given their evident interest in putting out the word that there's "nothing to see here" in the VAERS numbers.

> 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.

This is trivially accounted for by comparing Covid and influenza vaccines. If I limit to ages 18-59 I get ~73,000 total adverse events for influenza vaccines across their entire history, and 173,000 adverse events for Covid vaccines since they started to be administered at the beginning of the year.

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

#219

Post by OJFord »

stormbrew wrote: post #55
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.

I'm incredibly skeptical that it would do much at all to hasten rollout, at least in the US and other countries in a similar place. There are more than enough vaccines to go around at this point[1], and adding any kind of question mark to "should I get it?" just creates unnecessary complexity. Just get it in everyone's arms as fast as possible, all this dicking around with rules around who can or should get it now th…

Well I'm not really necessarily saying it should change now, but I was responding to 'this has always been obvious, why interesting' - you'd think policy would've been different from the start if it were so obvious.

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

#220

Post by photon-torpedo »

waterside81 wrote: post #70
stavros wrote: 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

Had avoided Covid all 2020, but in February I needed to go to hospital for unrelated reasons -- needed urgent treatment, otherwise potentially life-threatening, had to stay several days. Had three negative Covid tests during the stay, but the fourth came back positive, just a day before my discharge. So I'm pretty sure I caught it inside the hospital. :(
Post reply on HN