Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta • Hacker News Board

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#121

Post by lamontcg » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 6:48 AM UTC

brodouevencode wrote: post #24

jdhn wrote: post #2

Is this necessarily a bad thing? If it protects the vast majoriy of people from going into the hospital and they gain additional immunity from covid, then I don't really see a downside.

The pretense all along as far as I can tell from most countries has been one of "zero COVID". Meaning a total removal/extermination of the virus. Whether or not this was ever realistic is really the underlying debate that hasn't yet fully surfaced.

The goal was to get as many people vaccinated first before being naturally exposed to the virus.

That should cut down the fatality rate, along with the rest of the lifelong damage the virus causes, by at least an order of magnitude.

The goal was also to avoid the hospital system and ICUs collapsing, which should be a natural result of everyone getting vaccinated.

Vaccine boosters yearly or every other year were also always discussed as early as March 2020 to deal either with waning immunity or reformulations to address antigenic escape.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#122

Post by danmaz74 » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 6:51 AM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #109

criticaltinker wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all 3 of them told me to expect something like that - the virus mutates ... and the vaccines will likely be needing to adjust Your doctor friends were informing you about a phenomenon commonly referred to as "immune escape". The current mRNA based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are effective at preventing severe outcomes like hospitalization and death. However, they do not necessarily prevent infection or transmission - and t…

>The current mRNA based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are effective at preventing severe outcomes like hospitalization and death According to this very article this isn't even really true any more. Of the currently hospitalized population in Israel 60% are fully vaccinated. With 78% of the population vaccinated that implies the protection is actually surprisingly weak. " “There are so many breakthrough infections that they dom…

What is the age of the hospitalised, and what is the vaccination rate for that age range? I expect most of the hospitalised to be elderly, and most of the non vaccinated to be young.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#123

Post by cdrini » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 6:51 AM UTC

oliv__ wrote: post #92

maxerickson wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting booster shots to lessen the risk to people that are at greater risk from the virus isn't a huge imposition. We should make it easier for more people to do it (people that don't have sick leave or aren't sure they can take it and so on).

> Getting booster shots to lessen the risk to people that are at greater risk from the virus isn't a huge imposition. You may think so. I politely disagree.

Care to contribute to the conversation and explain why? At risk populations do get eg the flu shot.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#124

Post by SideburnsOfDoom » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:07 AM UTC

legerdemain wrote: post #66

brodouevencode wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pretense all along as far as I can tell from most countries has been one of "zero COVID". Meaning a total removal/extermination of the virus. Whether or not this was ever realistic is really the underlying debate that hasn't yet fully surfaced.

Europeans learned to live with the bubonic plague, which has never been eradicated, and Native Americans, over time, overcame the smallpox that was introduced among them. The people of today can do the same with Covid. It is the only way.

The bubonic plague killed around a third of Europe (1) and upended the social order for generations (2).

Up to 90% of Native Americans died from smallpox and other imported diseases (3) and it's clear that their societies were in fact overcome.

They died a lot. To handwave "learn to live with" is naïve and facile. A virus can't care if we lose a double-digit percentage of population, but we're not choosing that course.

Don't mistake a disaster remembered 500 years later for "eh. it worked out ok" Don't confuse mass death with "learn to live with".

1) https://www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/black-death

2) https://www.britannica.com/event/Black-Death/Effects-and-sig...

3) https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-...

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#125

Post by edanm » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:12 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #104

smnrchrds wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the topic of the article. You are much less likely to end up in a hospital or ICU if you are vaccinated, but it won't be extraordinary, especially if you are old. > What is clear is that “breakthrough” cases are not the rare events the term implies. As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19, a 31% increase from just 4 days earlier. Of the 514, 59% were fully vaccinated. O…

> > What is clear is that “breakthrough” cases are not the rare events the term implies. As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19, a 31% increase from just 4 days earlier. Of the 514, 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older. This is a bad interpretation by the article's author. At some point (at 100% vaccination rate) we'd expect 100% of people in hos…

Not super important, but yesterday there were 8,646 new cases detected.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#126

Post by Gibbon1 » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:23 AM UTC

cdrini wrote: post #123

oliv__ wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting booster shots to lessen the risk to people that are at greater risk from the virus isn't a huge imposition. You may think so. I politely disagree.

Care to contribute to the conversation and explain why? At risk populations do get eg the flu shot.

I used to joke that I gotten so many tetanus shots that I can cure it by laying on of hands. But consider women, they have all sort of intrusive health related stuff imposed on them. They get pap smears, mammograms, then consider all the things that happen with pregnancy. And they just roll with it.

Thing though, when I was reading about potential vaccines spring so 2020 people that knew what they were talking about were unsure if a third dose would be needed. Because there are a number of vaccines that require three doses.

Also I've come to be suspicious of any argument that includes the demand that we not 'panic' or 'live in fear'. I'm beginning to see nothing but masculine anxiety/panic in that.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#127

Post by velcii » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:31 AM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #91

ncal wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot say it has "no long-term side effects". also a new flu vaccine is developed every year because influenza viruses naturally mutate quickly, as do any viruses. Don't just write things that you wish were true.

> You cannot say it has "no long-term side effects" What are the long-term side effects of the vaccine? Or are you saying that you expect us to discover some in the future?

We don't really know because the even the phase 2 trials for these vaccines have not been done..

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#128

Post by smt88 » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:32 AM UTC

Auracle wrote: post #113

smt88 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How much do the treatments cost? Is it vastly different? An average hospitalization costs $73,000 in the US, according to data collected from insurance claims[1]. That means that a single hospitalization costs the same as vaccinating 2,400 people (using your $30/shot estimate). > How do you know? I thought the only study/data from Pfizer covered 6 months. That's not very long term? Although I'm not an expert, a fri…

Pandemrix was also similar to previous vaccines but caused an increase in narcolepsy, no? Immune systems are complicated.

Yes, and the reason it caused bad side effects was the strong immune response[1], which is a short term effect. That is exactly what has been extensively tested for the Covid vaccines.

1. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-sho...

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#129

Post by smt88 » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:35 AM UTC

Auracle wrote: post #111

smt88 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Long term side effects won't be known for 5-10 years, especially as vaccinated people have kids. Good news, then. Viral vector vaccines (like the J&J version) have been studied and tested since the 1970s, and mRNA vaccines (like Pfizer) have been studied since the 1980s[1][2]. What ingredient in Covid vaccines do you suspect will become the new thalidomide? We know that the actual viral vector and mRNA components o…

We know that the spike protein itself causes damage. For adults that’s almost never an issue, but I feel like the overarching recommendation that pregnant women get the vaccine is misguided. It doesn’t make much sense to get it if they’ve already had COVID or are still working from home. If those aren’t true then the risk is probably worth it as a raging infection would almost certainly be worse for the baby. I just…

The spike protein absolutely does not cause damage. Please cite a reputable source.

The claim that the spike protein is dangerous in and of itself is a fixture of anti-vax disinformation online.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/08/fac...

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#130

Post by velcii » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:36 AM UTC

anyfoo wrote: post #3

jdhn wrote: post #2

Is this necessarily a bad thing? If it protects the vast majoriy of people from going into the hospital and they gain additional immunity from covid, then I don't really see a downside.

A less effective vaccination keeps COVID around longer and farther than a more effective one, though, giving the virus more time and population surface to mutate into further variants. (But still less than no vaccination.) I'm not an expert in this, so I cannot say how significant that issue is, but this is at least one potential downside that I am seeing to the vaccination being weaker for that variant. EDIT: To cla…

>But still less than no vaccination..

Can you share why you think the current vaccines will reduce the mutations when we already know that they only prevent symptoms (not even reduce viral load for some variants).

So given that, why do you think the current vaccines will reduce the chances for virus to mutate.

To me, it appears that the current vaccines will give the exact same chance for the virus to mutate, without the vaccine, but in addition also apply selection pressure to guide the evolution to gain immune escape. So the worst of both worlds.