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

161–170 of 371 posts

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

#161

Post by Aachen »

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?

I remember reports of the first reinfections as well as early talk of asymptomatic cases, where the news then tentatively concluded: and thus we hope a vaccine will be able to get good immunity where the having of covid does not. A few days ago was the first time I heard that knowledge challenged.

So it's not so much that it's unbelievable, more that it was established knowledge for more than a year and only now we're finding out these people were fine the whole time? Why then do we give them a booster dose that could be going to Africa?

(I don't mean to have those questions answered by the way since it's off topic; the questions this information conjures up are in answer to why it, at first glance, sounds controversial.)

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

#162

Post by sk2020 »

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’s controversial because nobody can package and sell “natural” immunity. Given that there are about 7.5B people in the world, RNA injections are, apparently, only good for 90 days, and that Pfizer (or someone) gets $20/injection, the market is about $600B a year.

Do you remember 20 years ago when the people on TV said that terrorism was an existential and imminent threat and the result was defense and surveillance companies made massive fortunes? The more things change…

Just kidding. Public opinion shaping campaigns are a dangerous conspiracy theory and nobody of any public office or Fortune 500 company ever lied for money and nobody ever tried RNA injections for humans until, like, just now.

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

#163

Post by andybak »

roenxi wrote: post #105
ProjectBarks wrote: post #85

This feels like an irresponsible title on behalf of the author. People don’t get the vaccine strictly on the strength of the vaccine. It’s considering the risk of getting COVID, understanding the long term side effects, and minimizing risk for those around you. It’s also about avoiding mutations of the virus as the higher availability of the virus only provides more opportunities for it to mutate into something more…

Based on the number of deaths, a very large percentage of people have already had COVID. Given that there is a non-0% chance of death or harm from taking the vaccine, why should they then get vaccinated? They are already less of a risk to themselves and others than someone who has been vaccinated.

> why should they then get vaccinated?

I haven't done the sums but I suspect the risk of harm from the vaccine is less than the benefits the vaccine gives (especially when you factor in the duration of protecection depending when you had Covid vs when you had the vaccine).

I know people who've recovered from serious Covid and still got vaccinated. I would.

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

#164

Post by aww_dang »

seoaeu wrote: post #129
raffraffraff wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Should be "If you survive covid 19, you will have greater immunity to covid that you would get from a vaccine"

Pedantically, dying from covid makes it even less likely you'll catch it again... Really this is all just confusing what the actual goal is: to end the pandemic while minimizing death and suffering

>the actual goal is: to end the pandemic while minimizing death and suffering

We can all agree we want less death and suffering. However, it isn't difficult to imagine that other goals may exist.

"The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world" - Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum

https://www.weforum.org/focus/the-great-reset

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

#165

Post by dgudkov »

It would be great if the people who had covid and developed immunity will finally become recognized by governments on par with vaccinated. Currently, they virtually don't exist for governments and media in many countries who prefer to divide everybody into just two groups: vaccinated and anti-vaxxers. A third group does exist and deserves to be heard.

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

#166

Post by ghiculescu »

fncypants wrote: post #133
yodsanklai wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This feels like an irresponsible title on behalf of the author The title describes the content of the article. I think people should be treated as adults (esp. on HN). We should be able to discuss Covid-19 science and data without always fearing misinterpretation from anti-vaxxers.

Sorry, no. This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with. Communication is key. Scientists and health professionals fail at it. Listing cold facts does not effectively communicate to the broad public, because they receive the message not by learning the new facts to change their word view, but by trying to fit it in their world view. Messaging is critical in public communication.

I think this attitude is actually what leads to a lot of hesitancy.

> Listing cold facts does not effectively communicate to the broad public

It’s very patronizing.

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

#168

Post by [deleted] »

fncypants wrote: post #133
yodsanklai wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This feels like an irresponsible title on behalf of the author The title describes the content of the article. I think people should be treated as adults (esp. on HN). We should be able to discuss Covid-19 science and data without always fearing misinterpretation from anti-vaxxers.

Sorry, no. This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with. Communication is key. Scientists and health professionals fail at it. Listing cold facts does not effectively communicate to the broad public, because they receive the message not by learning the new facts to change their word view, but by trying to fit it in their world view. Messaging is critical in public communication.

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by peteradio »

siilats wrote: post #121
peteradio wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see survivor bias here at all. This is simply a study that caters to a rather significant population who justifiably want to know what they stand to gain from this vaccine. What this study has done is identified a sub population who stand to gain such minuscule benefit from vaccination that it would be unethical to include them in a study (most studies DO exclude previously infected individuals, huh wonder wh…

Nobody died from vaccine but all the weak ones died from first infection so the surviving infected have survivorship bias.

Do you honestly think its wrong or uncommon to study a group of people who have experienced a disease? Perhaps in an effort to make them informed about their particular risks?
Post reply on HN