Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine?

#91

Post by gunapologist99 » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 1:32 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #72

pluc wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a legit conspiracy with this very narrative. We have a handful of companies who have just been showered in public funds in the hopes that they produce something to make themselves irrelevant. It's not hard to believe that they'll lobby for the boosters regardless of the data.

That's a really bad characterization though, the vaccine studies were designed with the participation of government scientists (for sure with Moderna, which was developed in partnership with NIH). The idea that the corporate scientists are all utterly corrupt and also so much better at science that they can undermine the effectiveness of the vaccines without ruining them completely is nonsensical.

Whether the vaccine works perfectly or not is actually completely irrelevant to the simple question of whether the government is inviting corruption by allowing what are effectively lobbyist scientists to apply suasion with "participating" in the studies, and aside from whether "participation" now adds the veneer of respectability that you cite.

Re: Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine?

#92

Post by gunapologist99 » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 1:33 PM UTC

cactus2093 wrote: post #29

ekianjo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we should be vaccinating people to discourage spread Vaccinations with current vaccines don't stop infections/spread at all - it's very obvious now with the Delta variant in countries that are already massively vaccinated like Israel and Island. In fact, vaccinated people can apparently carry just as high of a viral load as unvaccinated people (while vaccinated people will likely experience less symptoms). So the v…

Reported your comment for misinformation, this is untrue.

Not according to leaked CDC materials:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccin...

Who are you to determine what is "misinformation"?

Re: Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine?

#93

Post by gunapologist99 » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 1:35 PM UTC

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #46

cactus2093 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reported your comment for misinformation, this is untrue.

No. You are wrong. I have reported your comment for misinformation. [1] Study: Fully vaccinated people with "breakthrough" COVID Delta infections carry as much virus as the unvaccinated [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/covid-vaccine-delta-variant...

Yes. You are right. I have still reported your comment for not misinformation. (The Ministry Of Truth has requested that we report as many comments as we can, regardless of whether it's "information" or "misinformation")

Re: Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine?

#94

Post by jrs235 » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 1:35 PM UTC

jeromegv wrote: post #21

benf76 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a risk of creating variants by mass vaccination. If everyone has a uniform defense generated by a vaccine, this creates selection pressures for a variant that is able to maneuver around the vaccine induced immunity.

All the worst variants right now have developed in unvaccinated population. So either you sacrifice 1-2% of the population and let variants continue while not vaccinating anyone. Or you get vaccinated and reduce your risks of going to the hospital by a ratio of 30:1.

Curious, how did/does one conclude or determine that the worst variants developed in unvaccinated populations?

Re: Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine?

#95

Post by PartiallyTyped » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 1:35 PM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #66

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumption is based on the belief that an infection prevents reinfection, i.e. an infection is just as good at protecting a (recovered) patient as a vaccine is at protecting an uninfected person. But we have seen that Delta reinfects previously infected patients, ergo, an infection is at a best a leaky vaccine (ie as good as current vaccines, though there are indications that it is not [1]), and at worse, a cata…

But people that have been vaccinated have also been infected. Why would you call it a leaky vaccine when the vaccine leaks too? Or am I mistaken here?

I didn't mean to imply that the vaccines we use aren't leaky, they are. Even so, there are indications that getting the vaccine provides more effective defense than getting infected [1].

[1] https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera...

Re: Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine?

#96

Post by gunapologist99 » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #24

blueflow wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cross-reference it to https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac... I suspect we have the deadlier variants not despite, but because we are vaccinating and the vaccination is not effective in preventing spread.

That assumption is based on the belief that an infection prevents reinfection, i.e. an infection is just as good at protecting a (recovered) patient as a vaccine is at protecting an uninfected person. But we have seen that Delta reinfects previously infected patients, ergo, an infection is at a best a leaky vaccine (ie as good as current vaccines, though there are indications that it is not [1]), and at worse, a cata…

For some reason, I misread that to be "https://dictatorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera...".. and then I realized that I was right after all.

Re: Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine?

#97

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

gunapologist99 wrote: post #91

maxerickson wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really bad characterization though, the vaccine studies were designed with the participation of government scientists (for sure with Moderna, which was developed in partnership with NIH). The idea that the corporate scientists are all utterly corrupt and also so much better at science that they can undermine the effectiveness of the vaccines without ruining them completely is nonsensical.

Whether the vaccine works perfectly or not is actually completely irrelevant to the simple question of whether the government is inviting corruption by allowing what are effectively lobbyist scientists to apply suasion with "participating" in the studies, and aside from whether "participation" now adds the veneer of respectability that you cite.

Yeah, the scientists at the NIH aren't 'lobbyist scientists' (I think that's who you mean?), so if you think they are that, well, there's no real point in trying to discuss it.

The idea that the government overseeing efficacy study design invites corruption is also sort of tedious. Just deciding to regulate something reaches that same low bar of inviting corruption, but that would not be a good reason to not have regulation.

Re: Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine?

#98

Post by gunapologist99 » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #97

gunapologist99 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether the vaccine works perfectly or not is actually completely irrelevant to the simple question of whether the government is inviting corruption by allowing what are effectively lobbyist scientists to apply suasion with "participating" in the studies, and aside from whether "participation" now adds the veneer of respectability that you cite.

Yeah, the scientists at the NIH aren't 'lobbyist scientists' (I think that's who you mean?), so if you think they are that, well, there's no real point in trying to discuss it. The idea that the government overseeing efficacy study design invites corruption is also sort of tedious. Just deciding to regulate something reaches that same low bar of inviting corruption, but that would not be a good reason to not have reg…

> Yeah, the scientists at the NIH aren't 'lobbyist scientists' (I think that's who you mean?)

No, that's not what I mean. The scientists at Moderna are effectively lobbying for the effectiveness of their product and "inviting" NIH to apply a thin veneer of respectability by "participating" in their studies. It's no different from getting scientists at a large research university from "participating" in a large, well-funded corporate study; merely the association of the well-known brand gives the study a certain gravitas, but, and perhaps more importantly, bathes it in an aura of independence.

If I invent a new vitamin supplement and claim to have clinical studies that it does anything at all, fine. If I invite the FDA to "participate" in the studies, and they accept, then that instantly changes everything.

And if those seemingly independent FDA scientists then actively shill (or even demand) that my product be widely deployed, even better.

And NIH is doing a lot more beyond "regulating". If that was all they were doing, we'd have no argument, but NIH is actually issuing "public health" decrees that are becoming de facto mandates for hundreds of millions of people, and keeping secret any data that might go against their preferred narrative.

"Pfizer, Moderna seen reaping billions from COVID-19 vaccine booster market"

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

Re: Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine?

#99

Post by phonypc » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

rossdavidh wrote: post #62

IAmEveryone wrote: post #14

This is the sort of valid point that one will tend to avoid discussing because it is likely to be misused by the ideological critics of vaccination. As an alternative I haven’t heard much of, updating the vaccines would seem to be a good option, as well? The first round was developed fast enough to almost outrun variants, so it should work quite well second time around. It’s important to avoid the naturalistic fallac…

Yes, but the actual results from Israel and elsewhere suggest that, in this case, infection is better protection. It's not the naturalistic fallacy, it's what we're actually seeing. Of course, vaccination is far, far better than nothing. But for a 5-year old, or a 50 year old who's already vaccinated, it's not clear that more vaccination is better than just having your immune system learn from the real thing. It's al…

>Yes, but the actual results from Israel and elsewhere suggest that, in this case, infection is better protection. It's not the naturalistic fallacy, it's what we're actually seeing.

What is this in reference to? All evidence I've seen points to vaccine provided immunity being more protective.

Re: Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine?

#100

Post by new_realist » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

If the question is whether vaccine should go to someone who hasn’t been vaccinated or used as a booster for someone who has, it seems clear that it should go to the unvaccinated person unless the booster candidate is very high risk. But we don’t have a shortage of vaccines in the developed world, only a shortage of smart people willing to take them.

Bottom line, a booster shot reduces the chance of a variant emerging. You don’t want immunity to parts of the virus that aren’t the spike protein; that’s a waste of resources. The spike is what’s needed to reproduce.