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

171–180 of 371 posts

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

#171

Post by koheripbal »

andybak wrote: post #150
polote wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a much less clickbait title should have been chosen It is not clickbait, (if true) this is just a fact.

Clickbait and truth are not mutually exclusive. In fact I would suggest that most clickbait is true.

This isn't just some random fact. It's extremely relevant to the pandemic.

Knowing that previously infected people maintain immunity high levels against variants is important for people making informed decisions about their situations.

What GP is really worried about is this fact being misused to incentivize people NOT to get the vaccine.

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

#172

Post by hncurious »

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.

You're right that communication is critical, but it's precisely because facts are omitted that causes the problem. Those facts just come out later, and that only makes things worse. Instead of transparency and straight forward communication, public health officials are engaging in manipulation of the public. So called noble lies, like telling people masks don't work in order to cover for the lack of mask availability. That burned their credibility and is just one example.

The lies and lies by omission are literal oxygen to anti-vaxxers because they can point out, with proof, that we were lied to. Naturally the next question is, what else are we being lied to about?

Stop lying, start treating people like adults, be upfront from the start, and you'll see anti-vax and anti-expert sentiment dissipate.

I would also point out that there is an intentional conflation between anti-vaxxers (those opposed to all vaccines) and vaccine hesitant (those who are pro-vaccine generally, but are weary about a new vaccine or were already infected and have natural immunity). The latter are being grouped with the former, and this has also destroyed a great amount of credibility and trust.

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

#173

Post by peteradio »

amluto wrote: post #110
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…

The study appears to be reporting at least a further 50% reduction in risk for previously infected people who get a vaccine. One might debate whether the probabilities involved are so low as to be irrelevant, but the study absolutely supports the existence of a benefit.

Fair point. I hold my ground on the discrimination point.

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

#174

Post by koheripbal »

raffraffraff wrote: post #101
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…

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

This assumes the audience for this title are people that have not yet been infected.

It could also apply, for example, to the hundreds of millions of people world wide who have already been infected.

I don't think a fact should assume an audience.

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

#175

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

jaywalk wrote: post #149
kaibee wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's no easier than lying about vaccination status. Antibody tests are widely available, yet none of the pro-vaxers are willing to accept them as evidence of immunity. Why do you think that is?

As I understand it, Israel does count previous infection similar to vaccinated status.

Not an argument, just a data point.

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

#176

Post by DavideNL »

mikem170 wrote: post #135
DavideNL wrote: post #128

Is it still possible to detect whether you had COVID in the past, after already getting the vaccine?

Yes, I believe the right test can differentiate between the different antibody responses, telling you if you reacted to the virus, reacted to the vaccine, or both. I looked into this at one time and think I found one that cost $220. Sorry I don not have the link handy.

If you or anyone could post more info i’d be grateful. Like what specifications to look for in a test.

Also i wonder (approximately) how long after infection it would still be possible to test.

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

#177

Post by cogman10 »

aww_dang wrote: post #134
CyanLite2 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some folks are looking for any excuse to not get the vaccine.

I'm not sure the specific rationalizations are as relevant as the moral questions. Do individuals have a right to their own body? Does a collective or a technocrat have a right to coerce an individual into a medical procedure? If we answer "yes" to the second question, only then does it become relevant because we must next ask: Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individua…

> Do individuals have a right to their own body?

Insofar as their rights don't impact the rights of others.

Individuals have a right to drink alcohol. They do not have a right to then drive a car.

Vaccination by mandate is an extension of that reasoning. You have a right not to get vaccinated, but you don't have a right to participate in the public. Because restricting public interaction is neigh impossible (Even with imprisonment) the lesser of the two evils is mandated vaccination.

> Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line?

Yes, communicable illnesses prevention. That's the line. It's something that seems to have been lost on the modern era. It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people with disease by force of government (but often just voluntarily). This notion that there is no public interest in disease prevention and instead it's a "individual choice" is modern. Likely due to the advances in medicine, ironically vaccination, that have weakened the effects of most diseases.

I dislike this moral pearl clutching. Perhaps it's because I'm more morally a utilitarian.

At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society to work in general. The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths.

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

#178

Post by mikem170 »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #20
AndrewBissell wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure, but we'd need to be dealing with something like your 0.000001% number before the risks started to outweigh the benefits, wouldn't we? Even a half or a tenth or a hundredth of a percent increase would be far beyond any sort of vaccination risk. > Also, at least one study has hinted that the second dose may reduce humoral immunity. I don't think we can base current best choices upon things which are merel…

I guess it would be comparing the improvement from a vaccine to the better natural immunity versus the risks from a vaccine. I don't know that this is obvious.

For example, a hundredth of a percent improvement is 1 in 10k. And an already exposed person would be expected to have a less severe reaction if exposed again.

Also some people worry about certain aspects of the vaccine. Did you know that it took over 25 years to develop a lipid delivery system for mrna vaccines that wasn't toxic in animal tests? Or that they have concerns about accumulation of these lipids in organs like the liver? Or that getting sick after the vaccine may not be healthy? Or that they don't do a great job of looking for auto-immune reactions when it comes to vaccines?

It's a lot to think about. I'm a numbers guy and am happy with my conclusions on this. But I don't think it's right to force anything on others. The media often seem to do a better job of coming to conclusions for people rather than educating them.

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

#179

Post by BFatts »

foobar2021 wrote: post #22
kiba wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To develop natural immunity, you would need to get infected with the virus, no? That's considerably more risky than getting the vaccine. If you do get infected with the virus after vaccination, wouldn't you also develop natural immunity?

I think the worry with natural infection is if the timing is such to provide durable immunity. But it’s not like the vaccines have had 5 years of trials to determine the best wait between the 2 and 3 doses so kind of a moot point.

Why 5 years? Why not 1? Why not 50? What's so special to people about 5 years? I keep hearing people say "it hasn't been tested long enough" followed by "I'd take it in about 5 to 10 years" which is a HUGE difference. Is it just that "time has passed", because a year has passed since the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was first given to test subjects. But I guess it's up to people - their body, their choice.

Even though we live in what is commonly referred to as a "society". We agree to live by certain rules and norms that allow us to coexist. There is a faction of fools out there who resist being a part of society, but claim all of its privileges. These are sub-human individuals who just seek some form of control over others. That has to stop.

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

#180

Post by calvinmorrison »

ramraj07 wrote: post #83

I got downvoted for saying this here a while back. Anyone with good immunology experience would guess this to be accurate no matter what some half baked study says (which was what a bunch of people were telling in that earlier thread). Again doesn’t mean you should go get Covid or avoid the vaccine. The vaccine only helps. If you got Covid and then also got the vaccine it only helps more.

But the risk of dying of COVID for most age groups is basically zero.
Post reply on HN