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

181–190 of 371 posts

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

#181

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #72
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I’m a little out of loop, but isn’t it true that there can be no possible studies for long covid more than a year and half or so?

Of course there is long Covid, and of course there is the possibility of long Covid vaccine regardless of how ridiculous and unlikely that surely is. But from a scientific standpoint, it seems all we have could be initial studies at best.

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

#183

Post by aww_dang »

sk2020 wrote: post #162
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…

Please also consider the incentives for vaccine passports and "verified digital identities".

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

#184

Post by Aachen »

thom wrote: post #65
stanpinte wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and vice versa?

I'd specifically prefer to be infected after if I had to choose, on the assumption it'd be milder.

I've been wondering the same. Heck, perhaps get a third shot just to be safe and then get covid for good measure. But then we don't have enough production capacity for the vaccines worldwide as it is, and I'm not sure about my current chances with 2x mRNA so... it'd be interesting but I don't think I'd actually do it given the chance.

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

#185

Post by [deleted] »

Trumpi wrote: post #151
fncypants wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No - we have anti-vaxxers because nobody will debate them. Instead we ask them not to post their nonsense and so they just retreat to their echo-chambers and begin reinforcing their views to each other.

[deleted]

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

#186

Post by myko »

jaywalk wrote: post #160
myko wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a good idea why, exactly? Because previously-infected people tend to experience worse vaccine side-effects for little to no additional benefit?

> Because previously-infected people tend to experience worse vaccine side-effects for little to no additional benefit?

This is not the case. Research it yourself:

"Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19 again." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/09/covid-...

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/people-whove-had-covi...

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

#187

Post by andybak »

koheripbal wrote: post #171
andybak wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't quite understand your point. GP said

> It is not clickbait, (if true) this is just a fact.

And I was pointing out that this statement is based on flawed logic. I wasn't commenting on truth/falsehood or clickbait/non-clickbait. I'm just objecting to incorrectly reasoning from one to the other.

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

#188

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

t0mas88 wrote: post #104
vibrato2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m very confident I’ve been exposed to covid, yet never had any test or conclusive symptoms. I’m also confident that people like me do not experience problems from covid. At least not any more problems than a flu. A 1/3000 risk of myocarditis is not something I will risk. That’s a long term scarring of heart tissue, similar to how my father died in his 30s from teenage medical treatment. The difference in your state…

The European total was 145 cases of myocarditis on 177 million vaccinations. Assuming 2 vaccinations per person, that's 145 cases in 88.5 million people or a 0,00016% chance. That's less than 1 in 600.000 not the 3000 you claim. And even then, a very big majority of the myocarditis cases were mild enough to go away on their own. Only 5 people died from it and all were elderly with other pre-existing conditions.

I don’t know much about myocarditis, but isn’t it possible and even likely a large number of those cases would be undiagnosed?

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

#189

Post by JumpCrisscross »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #181
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I’m a little out of loop, but isn’t it true that there can be no possible studies for long covid more than a year and half or so? Of course there is long Covid, and of course there is the possibility of long Covid vaccine regardless of how ridiculous and unlikely that surely is. But from a scientific standpoint, it seems all we have could be initial studies at best.

> all we have could be initial studies at best

Correct. But at t+1.5 we have evidence long COVID exists. At t+1 we have zero evidence of long-term vaccine side effects.

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

#190

Post by myko »

myko wrote: post #186
jaywalk wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good idea why, exactly? Because previously-infected people tend to experience worse vaccine side-effects for little to no additional benefit?

> Because previously-infected people tend to experience worse vaccine side-effects for little to no additional benefit? This is not the case. Research it yourself: "Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVI…

Folks who are downvoting, please engage with my comments instead.
Post reply on HN