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

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 371 posts

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#71

Post by jjuel »

vibrato2 wrote: post #38
kiba wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wearing a mask is a mild annoyance. With vaccine, you might suffer side effects, but even that is short term. It's basically no-brainer, since getting infected with the virus is more likely to kill you than getting the vaccine. The only reason people are not getting the vaccine is for various reasons they don't trust that the vaccine is going to help them. Everything else is justification.

Did you miss the part of the fda statement this week where they said they have no long term data available?

Do you also realize the disease has only been around for maybe around 2 years at most? So we really have no long term data on effects from getting COVID naturally either. Considering we have plenty of data on other vaccines being quite safe in the long term. I would rather play that game than the "I am relatively healthy so I'll risk getting a deadly disease" I am aware I could still get COVID while vaccinated, but I also know that the chances of getting serious illness while vaccinated are much much lower than if I wasn't.

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#72

Post by JumpCrisscross »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #33
bigmattystyles wrote: post #14

But don’t you risk long hauler symptoms or worse? Meaning, it’s an interesting datapoint but not a viable strategy.

We know as much about “long Covid, as we know about “long covid vaccine“. That’s not pro or con anything, it’s just the truth that some are having a hard time admitting. I’m not sure at what point in the last year “we don’t know” became taboo. Maybe when we wrapped unknowns in policy decisions? EDIT: yes, we have data for that long Covid symptoms especially in severe cases, and suspected in mild cases, my point was t…

> We know as much about “long Covid, as we know about “long covid vaccine“

As in we have proof one exists and none of the other?

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#73

Post by kaibee »

h2odragon wrote: post #62

Why is "natural infections and recovery produce a better immune response than a vaccine" so controversial? Has it been this controversial for any other disease?

It makes it very easy for people to lie about. Both to themselves, ("well i was a little sick around month X, so that was probably covid, so i don't need a vaccine") and to others.

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#74

Post by ynfnehf »

CyanLite4 wrote: post #41

The Lancet just published a study yesterday on natural infection still causing symptoms one year later (“long Covid”) for 49% of unvaccinated people. I’ll stick to the vaccine.

49% of infected having symptoms a year later is ridiculous and obviously not true. Unless you define symptoms extremely broadly.

I have not read the study you are referring to. Are you sure it is not specifically about hospitalized patients? Even then it sounds extreme.

But you are right that vaccines are clearly better when given a choice.

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#75

Post by IonizedOp »

peteradio wrote: post #46
gkfasdfasdf wrote: post #37

Isn't there some selection bias going on here? Having covid once protects against getting it again - if the first one didn't kill you that is.

Its relevant to survivors.

By survivors you include the vaccine survivors?

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#76

Post by mattrighetti »

lowercased wrote: post #23
mc32 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people in high risk groups should get it, i.e., the elderly and people with weak immune systems or other health issues. Those who are strong health wise ok, they stand a good chance. That said, I am totally against this blanket insistence on passports. There may be some situations which warrant vaccinations where the subject has no acquired immunity, health workers, etc. But being denied access to govt servic…

> But being denied access to govt services because you lack the papers is not a good thing. What gov services are people being denied? legit question - I hear this, but unsure what is being referred to. How about "vaccine proof or wear a mask" to get/access govt services/buildings/etc?

Not really a govt service but here in Italy my friends can't enter college (the structure itself) without a green pass, and exams have to be taken in person.

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#77

Post by Expirat »

eplanit wrote: post #4

One can observe how this topic has become political, and is no longer scientific. Our focus and concerns are now all about existing and forthcoming restrictions and mandates for vaccinations and masks -- so much that information like this is no longer even interesting to most people. Not only uninteresting, but vulnerable to censors.

> information like this is no longer even interesting to most people

That is because the opportunity has arisen to assert power and control over those deemed the enemies of modernity, diversity and progres, you know those guys: the antivaxxers, the qtards, the bigots, the skeptics, the conspiracists, the uneducated and so on. Vaccine mandates and restrictions are not a rational reaction to the threat of covid but an irrational reaction used by the upper class, the elites, the guys in charge to beat down both economically and socially the deplorables. And the deplorables react with such opposition to vaccines and pandemic measures precisely because they sense the hatred and bias, they feel all those measures are not made to protect them but to force them to just get bent.

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#78

Post by sleavey »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #9
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #5

I can only consider this a positive for those who are vaccine hesitant, as they will probably be getting it, but I can't see how, considering the realistic dangers of a vaccine, a rational individual wouldn't want both forms of protection even if they were previously infected.

What is the realistic marginal increase in protection from the vaccine for someone who has recovered and is in a very low risk age/comorbidities cohort? Is reducing their absolute risk of a really bad Covid outcome by 0.00001% really worth the risks attendant in the vaccine? Also, at least one study has hinted that the second dose may reduce humoral immunity.

Meta-reply: at time of writing your comment is grey enough to be on -2, yet nothing you say is trolling or unhelpful. In fact, your comment contains merely two questions and a supposition. I've seen this on HN particularly for COVID related topics and I don't think it's at all helpful. I reckon very few on here are outright anti-vaxxers in the traditional sense of the term (e.g. given to those implying a link between MMR and autism, etc.) yet these days anyone asking questions that may portray, perhaps merely indirectly, some SARS-CoV-2 prophylactics/treatments in a bad light are downvoted. It's not good for curiosity and doesn't help us collectively get to the truth on matters and I think we can do better as a community.

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#79

Post by CodeWriter23 »

nogridbag wrote: post #52
eplanit wrote: post #4

One can observe how this topic has become political, and is no longer scientific. Our focus and concerns are now all about existing and forthcoming restrictions and mandates for vaccinations and masks -- so much that information like this is no longer even interesting to most people. Not only uninteresting, but vulnerable to censors.

Comments like these about censorship keep coming up, yet this is the third straight day this topic is being discussed on the front page of HN. I see the same thing on Facebook. Half of my family is still complaining about censorship and how everything is politicized while they continue to post political memes about Hilary Clinton, false or misleading information about vaccines, etc. The other half quit facebook or oc…

Censorship is happening. A friend of mine (who happens to be a former Congressman) was silenced by Facebook for 30 days for merely citing Pfizer’s profit on the vaccine as reported in a WSJ Article.

Don’t be fooled by the narratives Facebook permits.

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#80

Post by myko »

thom wrote: post #54

Would getting infected _after_ being vaccinated, which doesn't seem totally unheard of, confer an additional boost to one's immunity?

Absolutely it would. Which is why it's a good idea to get vaccinated even if you have been infected or think you may have been.

The article backs this position up as well, though the headline belies that:

"The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and then received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated."

Post reply on HN