Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Immunity Generated from Covid-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

directorsblog.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 250 posts

Re: Immunity Generated from Covid-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

#211

Post by incrudible »

strenholme wrote: post #127
incrudible wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first principle for vaccines to be administered ethically is that the benefit must be outweigh the risk. As trials have not completed and more information on vaccine side-effects is yet to be accumulated, this risk/benefit can be assessed only speculatively. For instance, this[1] study suggests that the risk of Myocarditis from COVID in young men is six times higher from an infection than from a vaccination. If w…

What the linked study [1] is saying is that unvaccinated people who get COVID-19 are even more likely to get Myocarditis than vaccinated people ; it counters the allegation that people should not get vaccinated because of the risk of Myocarditis. Even if the vaccine increased the risk (it doesn’t), the risk of COVID-19 is orders of magnitude higher than the risk of the Myocarditis heart condition. There have been, fr…

Please read my post again carefully, because your reply does not address my argument at all.

> There have been, from the total of 12,910,312 18-24 year-old people vaccinated, [2] about 229 cases of this rare heart disease (and, in almost all cases, the person was discharged from the hospital the same day with a clean bill of health) That means the vaccine has under a 0.002% chance of causing a very rare but not fatal heart condition.

The FDA has recorded[1] a rate of 0.0065% of Myocarditis cases and further estimates[2] a rate of up to 0.02% cases after vaccinations with the Pfizer vaccine, in the 16-17 male group. That risk appears to halve by age 25[3]. The rates with the Moderna vaccine may be higher still[4].

The common misrepresentation of Myocarditis as "mild" is concerning. In many cases, it leads to permanent heart damage, which in turn can lead to cardiac arrest later, significantly increasing mortality risk[5]. When undetected, acute Myocarditis can lead to cardiac arrest under stress, which is the leading causes of death in young athletes[6].

> I would rather take a 0.002% non-fatal risk than a 1.66% fatal risk

This is a population average, including co-morbidities, which is highly misleading. The CFR for males under 30 without co-morbidities in high-income countries has been estimated[7] at 0.0003%. At the other end, you have 80+ year males with co-morbidities at 20.08%.

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download (Page 23)

[2] https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download (Page 24)

[3] https://www.dicardiology.com/article/overview-myocarditis-ca...

[4] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-probing-moderna-vaccine-...

[5] https://jcmr-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1532-...

[6] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/sudden-cardia...

[7] https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/predicted-covid-19... (Page 6)

Re: Immunity Generated from Covid-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

#212

Post by incrudible »

jyounker wrote: post #167
logicalmonster wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> COVID-19, on the other hand, has an overall 1.66% chance of killing someone (38,043,754 cases, 629,644 deaths). An honest, apples to apples statistical comparison here would compare 18-24 year old death rates to 18-24 year old heart problems risk, not lumping all deaths regardless of age together. > I would rather take a 0.002% non-fatal risk than a 1.66% fatal risk. Statistical problems aside, I’m happy if you tak…

The unvaccinated are volunteering themselves as breeders for the next stronger and nastier version of covid, and they pose an active danger to those who cannot be vaccinated.

This is speculation. I might as well speculate that a vaccine that does not prevent infection or spread, but also puts selective pressure on the virus to escape vaccine immunity, is likely to lead to a vaccine-escape mutation when administered to a large population. This mutation then poses a risk to those who would need the vaccine that has now become ineffective.

The fact that we currently see mutations coming out populations that aren't vaccinated is a number's game. Most of the world population is not vaccinated. Vaccinating the last 30% in developed nations will not change that.

Re: Immunity Generated from Covid-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

#213

Post by incrudible »

munk-a wrote: post #184
logicalmonster wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> COVID-19, on the other hand, has an overall 1.66% chance of killing someone (38,043,754 cases, 629,644 deaths). An honest, apples to apples statistical comparison here would compare 18-24 year old death rates to 18-24 year old heart problems risk, not lumping all deaths regardless of age together. > I would rather take a 0.002% non-fatal risk than a 1.66% fatal risk. Statistical problems aside, I’m happy if you tak…

> I think all the unvaccinated want is the same absolute right to decide the same for themselves. And I, personally, refuse to grant them that courtesy. If you want to smoke twelve packs a day (while living in a country with no healthcare) then feel free buddy - but not getting vaccinated effects everyone - including those who choose to help move us past this pandemic by getting vaccinated. This isn't a question of i…

Poor analogies and collectivist arguments aside, from a medical ethics standpoint, if my personal risk from being vaccinated outweighs the personal risk of infection, you do not have a right to impose it on me. Despite this being parroted as obviously true, these analyses at this point are based on statistical modeling and conjecture with no regard to personal disposition beyond "age cohort"[1].

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download (Page 24)

Re: Immunity Generated from Covid-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

#214

Post by strenholme »

incrudible wrote: post #211
strenholme wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the linked study [1] is saying is that unvaccinated people who get COVID-19 are even more likely to get Myocarditis than vaccinated people ; it counters the allegation that people should not get vaccinated because of the risk of Myocarditis. Even if the vaccine increased the risk (it doesn’t), the risk of COVID-19 is orders of magnitude higher than the risk of the Myocarditis heart condition. There have been, fr…

Please read my post again carefully, because your reply does not address my argument at all. > There have been, from the total of 12,910,312 18-24 year-old people vaccinated, [2] about 229 cases of this rare heart disease (and, in almost all cases, the person was discharged from the hospital the same day with a clean bill of health) That means the vaccine has under a 0.002% chance of causing a very rare but not fatal…

>your reply does not address my argument at all

Yes, it does. I pointed out that the chance of getting Myocarditis is 0.002%, i.e. near zero. I also pointed out, and I repeat myself, that there have been 2,630 deaths from COVID-19 for 18-29 year olds (never mind the suffering COVID-19 causes people in this age range) [1]. Something that causes 2,630 deaths is more risky than something causing 229 non-fatal hospital visits.

I also observe you’re quoting stuff which uses estimated risks. The 229 number is a real risk: That’s the number of people who actually got Myocarditis after being vaccinated, a fact you conveniently ignored. To argue that a theoretical risk buried in a report (which correctly felt the risk was very small and approved the vaccine) trumps a real world figure we now have is downright disingenuous bad faith arguing.

Going back to your parent post, you allege that the pre-print paper https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998 doesn’t “consider that actual COVID infections may be undercounted [sic]” (your words). Did you even read the paper?? Let me quote it: “In the United States, there is no national data on infection rate by age. According to a systematic review and the working assumption of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, children may have infection rates similar to adults, with younger people having more mild or asymptomatic cases. Accordingly, we used the estimated 9.2% population infection rate for April 2020 - March 2021.”

In other words, no they didn’t just look at case numbers, they made a reasonable estimate of actual infection figures, and based on those estimated figures said that one is six times more likely to get Myocarditis from COVID-19 itself than from a vaccination.

Now, it’s possible that a random Ycombinator poster has a better estimate for the number of total COVID-19 infections than a team of scientists writing a paper about COVID-19 and submitting it to peer review, but I’m not holding my breath here.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...

Re: Immunity Generated from Covid-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

#215

Post by incrudible »

strenholme wrote: post #174
logicalmonster wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> COVID-19, on the other hand, has an overall 1.66% chance of killing someone (38,043,754 cases, 629,644 deaths). An honest, apples to apples statistical comparison here would compare 18-24 year old death rates to 18-24 year old heart problems risk, not lumping all deaths regardless of age together. > I would rather take a 0.002% non-fatal risk than a 1.66% fatal risk. Statistical problems aside, I’m happy if you tak…

That was a reasonable back of the envelope calculation, and I notice that the criticism of my figures was done without providing better figures . However, I am willing to come up with more suitable figures. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-... says there have been 2,630 deaths from COVID-19 for 18-29 year olds (never mind the suffering COVID-19 causes people in this age range). Something th…

I have remarked upon your numbers in another comment. Why do your own math based on outdated newspaper articles and statistics websites when there are scientific publications and FDA documents to draw upon? Calculating the crude chance of death based on population averages is misleading, because those will have risk groups massively over-represented.

Re: Immunity Generated from Covid-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

#216

Post by strenholme »

incrudible wrote: post #215
strenholme wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a reasonable back of the envelope calculation, and I notice that the criticism of my figures was done without providing better figures . However, I am willing to come up with more suitable figures. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-... says there have been 2,630 deaths from COVID-19 for 18-29 year olds (never mind the suffering COVID-19 causes people in this age range). Something th…

I have remarked upon your numbers in another comment. Why do your own math based on outdated newspaper articles and statistics websites when there are scientific publications and FDA documents to draw upon? Calculating the crude chance of death based on population averages is misleading, because those will have risk groups massively over-represented.

The CDC figure for number of COVID-19 deaths among 18-29 year olds is 2,761. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex...

So, guess what, those “newspaper articles and statistics websites” have the same general numbers as more official sources like the FDA; indeed, the CDC’s own numbers are higher than the number I used for COVID-19 deaths among young adults. (And, oh, if you think the CDC’s figures are faulty, I have nothing more to say to you; you’re not looking too good after insinuating that https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998 didn’t attempt to measure total COVID-19 infections, when, in fact, a cursory reading of the paper shows they did)

With something as fast moving as COVID-19, the press often times gets accurate figures before they’re formally published.

If you want to convince me the numbers I used are wrong, please give me up to date numbers from reliable sources which contradict my figures. Not estimates from a paper written a few months ago.

Finally, I need to flat out ask you: Have you gotten the COVID-19 vaccine yet? I got mine months ago. I will not respond to you again until I know your vaccination status.

Re: Immunity Generated from Covid-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

#217

Post by incrudible »

strenholme wrote: post #214
incrudible wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read my post again carefully, because your reply does not address my argument at all. > There have been, from the total of 12,910,312 18-24 year-old people vaccinated, [2] about 229 cases of this rare heart disease (and, in almost all cases, the person was discharged from the hospital the same day with a clean bill of health) That means the vaccine has under a 0.002% chance of causing a very rare but not fatal…

>your reply does not address my argument at all Yes, it does. I pointed out that the chance of getting Myocarditis is 0.002%, i.e. near zero. I also pointed out, and I repeat myself, that there have been 2,630 deaths from COVID-19 for 18-29 year olds (never mind the suffering COVID-19 causes people in this age range) [1]. Something that causes 2,630 deaths is more risky than something causing 229 non-fatal hospital v…

I still get the impression that you did not carefully read my reply, because it already addresses all the points you just made.

> Something that causes 2,630 deaths is more risky than something causing 229 non-fatal hospital visits.

This over-represents the risk groups. As you can see from the source[7] I posted, there's a massive difference between those with risk factors and those without.

> I also observe you’re quoting stuff which uses estimated risks. The 229 number is a real risk

The "229 number" is a number you took out of an outdated newspaper article. The FDA has recorded[2] (not estimated) a risk of 0.0065%.

> To argue that a theoretical risk buried in a report (which correctly felt the risk was very small and approved the vaccine) trumps a real world figure we now have is downright disingenuous bad faith arguing.

Let's not go down that "bad faith" route. You've been throwing around plenty of misleading numbers, but I don't think you're doing it in bad faith.

The FDA itself has found a "worst case" scenario[2] of low incidence that showed the risk/benefit ratio was not in favor of the vaccine, using efficacy estimates that may or may not reflect reality further down the road. This was then pushed aside by purported risks of longer observed hospital stays, but ignoring the long-term risk factors of Myocarditis. This is entirely speculative, at which point people risk believing whatever they want to be true, not what is actually true.

[2] https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download (Page 24)

[7] https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/predicted-covid-19... (Page 6)

Re: Immunity Generated from Covid-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

#218

Post by bananabiscuit »

manwe150 wrote: post #192
bananabiscuit wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry. I never said and never even meant to imply that you should try to get sick instead of getting the vaccine. Only that if you were already sick, that it greatly shifts your own risk/benefit profile in the direction of not getting the vaccine.

Currently, I think the numbers for a person in that case are then 1% chance of getting COVID again naturally vs vaccine’s 0.001% chance of allergic reaction and a reduced chance of getting COVID again of 0.5%. (Using very round numbers) Which risk do you choose? Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

I’ll personally take the risk of being reinfected with COVID.

Either way, at a <= 1% risk of re-infection, I’m no longer a real liability to society so please just leave it for me to decide and don’t force me undergo any unnecessary medical procedures.

Re: Immunity Generated from Covid-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

#219

Post by bsaul »

derkster wrote: post #209
bsaul wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really glad you bring this argument, because it seems to me as it would be indeed the only "real" reason to have young people vaccinated.. Unfortunately, the recent news on that front don't bring much hope. Vaccinated people can be infected, and transmit the virus to elderly people (the rate at which they do being currently debated among specialist, some claiming it is much less, other claiming it is just as much…

I would like to think that getting vaccinated helped reduce viral load enough to help limit potential mutations to some degree, but who knows. I do know I need to be able to live with myself, and if I accidentally hurt someone I loved due to being careless in the face of a real threat - it would tear me up. I'm sure others feel the same, and I hope people can keep it up through the fatigue. :)

yeah, it seems like if you're ever visiting an old relative, the better option seems to still be to get tested right before, vaccinated or not.

Re: Immunity Generated from Covid-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

#220

Post by webinvest »

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #104
brainbrane wrote: post #54

I just learned last week that my COVID antibody count from the vaccine is zero. Since I'm on an immunosuppressing medication that wipes out the B cells in my bloodstream, this isn't really all that surprising to me. I learned about this because I'm in a medical study, and other people in the study who take the same medication also don't produce any COVID antibodies in response to the vaccine. What's interesting is th…

Which medication are you using?

Maybe one for HIV/AIDS? That disease is an eventual death sentence.
Post reply on HN