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

191–200 of 371 posts

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

#191

Post by TimTheTinker »

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.

> This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with.

No, this isn't the reason. Straight, clear communication of facts from professionals is one of the best ways to combat erroneous viewpoints.

Telling people the truth (including what you don't yet know) and letting them freely assume their own risks is a powerful way to win them over.

> 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

People don't change their worldview because someone tries to change it for them. Straight facts without manipulation of any sort is the best way.

People know when they're being manipulated, talked down to, and lied to. That's the worst way to try to change their opinion. Fauci and other officials did a lot of this early on, unfortunately, and they lost credibility with large swaths of the public, leaving a truth vacuum that badly misinformed youtubers rushed in to fill.

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

#192

Post by peteradio »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #64

There is a simple solution to the conundrum: a standardised vaccine passport plus a separate, standardised proof of prior infection. Then let each business and jurisdiction choose whom to admit. Part of the problem with the prior-infection claim is it’s harder to verify than vaccination. Solving that would go a long way towards letting those individuals participate in normal life without compromising public health or…

It may be in their rights to bar immune people who refuse vaccination but its plainly unscientific discrimination.

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

#193

Post by downWidOutaFite »

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.

I've seen many online debates with antivaxers and nobody convinces anybody of anything. People just get angrier and more hardened in their opinions. Everyone goes into it with an us vs them mentality instead of open minded.

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

#194

Post by bavell »

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.

Sorry, no. Hiding facts from responsible adults is a great way to breed resistance to any subject being discussed. Stop infantilizing your neighbors.

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

#195

Post by flowardnut »

yodsanklai wrote: post #113
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…

> 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.

go step into the world of "covid vaccines are bad!" for a second (/r/newnormal) and you'll rescind this statement. It's getting out of hand, between misinformation and politicizing how we treat an infectious virus.

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

#196

Post by alunchbox »

hncurious wrote: post #172
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.

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…

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

I've only seen Anti-vaxxers treated as adults from the onset, being upfront about the data etc. It just get disputed, debated and then denied.

I'm burnt out and numb to them at this point. I do agree with you that information shouldn't be omitted; However, the damage is done at this point. It's not going to stop either.

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

#197

Post by swader999 »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #137
Pxtl wrote: post #98

Good news for survivors, but this is going to make battles about vaccine passports much worse as anti-vax covid survivors demand exemption from the program.

I don't think being against vaccine passports necessarily makes you an anti-vaxxer. I've had both shots of the vaccine and I strongly oppose any sort of mandatory government ID card health-related or not, to the point I'll avoid patronising domestic businesses that voluntarily (ie without strong government coercion) impose them. I'm not a fan of any form of authoritarianism really, let alone the overtly authoritarian…

Exactly this. And all it takes is for this scanning system to be centralized and then they can turn you off and geo fence you in. You may trust the current government to not abuse it but do you trust the next ten?

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

#198

Post by tzs »

abnorxiouster wrote: post #125
tzs wrote: post #106

Long term it seems pretty straightforward. It is almost certain COVID will become endemic, and no known form of immunity whether from vaccination or prior infection confers sufficient permanent immunity against infection to stop re-infection but prior immunity (from vaccine or prior infection) does greatly reduce the chances that your infection will give you serious illness. You assumption therefore should be that ov…

> The question then is whether you want your first infection to be with or without prior immunity. If you want that first time to be with prior immunity get vaccinated as that is the only known way to get immunity before your first infection. You get vaccinated against an extremely specific variant, that does not guarantee any immunity for other variants unlike immunity from infection. Did you get vaccinated every ye…

> You get vaccinated against an extremely specific variant, that does not guarantee any immunity for other variants unlike immunity from infection.

The current vaccines in the US provide excellent protection against serious illness or death from all current variations. It is only protection against infection that has fallen off some with the variations.

> Did you get vaccinated every year for the seasonal flu pre 2020?

Yes.

> Why would you suggest anyone that is not in a risk group and is healthy to vaccinate when his body is better prepared to withstand and easily battle any sars-cov-19 variant?

Because P(serious illness or death from their first COVID infection|not vaccinated) is much greater than P(serious illness or death from vaccination) + (1 - P(serious illness or death from vaccination)) x P(serious illness or death from their first COVID infection|vaccinated).

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

#200

Post by koheripbal »

andybak wrote: post #187
koheripbal wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that it can be both. In this case, imo, it is not both.

This isn't clickbait because this fact is pertinent.

Post reply on HN