Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by criticaltinker » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 3:17 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

Not disagreeing with your general point, but this statement is not accurate. For example, cross-reactive antibodies from other common cold coronaviruses can provide immune protection [1], which may partially explain why a large fraction of people are completely asymptomatic after initial SARS-COV-2 infection.

> COVID-19 patients elicit strong responses to the nucleocapsid (N) protein of SARS-CoV-2 but binding antibodies are also detected in prepandemic individuals, indicating potential crossreactivity with common cold human coronaviruses (HCoV) [1]

> In our study, we speculate that preexisting OC43 HCoV IgGs to N protein could be protective and, as a result, incoming SARS-CoV-2 infections would be more controlled and thus fewer antibodies induced against them.

> In conclusion, N protein is a primary target of SARS-CoV-2-specific and HCoV crossreactive antibodies, both of which may affect the acquisition of immunity to COVID-19. [1]

[1] Immunogenicity and crossreactivity of antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2: utility and limitations in seroprevalence and immunity studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7879156/

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

#202

Post by wokwokwok » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 3:17 PM UTC

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…

Did you read the article?

> Still, Thålin and other researchers stress that deliberate infection among unvaccinated people would put them at significant risk of severe disease and death, or the lingering, significant symptoms of what has been dubbed Long Covid.

> The study shows the benefits of natural immunity, but “doesn’t take into account what this virus does to the body to get to that point,” says Marion Pepper, an immunologist at the University of Washington, Seattle.

> COVID-19 has already killed more than 4 million people worldwide and there are concerns that Delta and other SARS-CoV-2 variants are deadlier than the original virus.

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

#203

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 3:18 PM UTC

peteradio wrote: post #192

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.

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

We don’t have strong evidence either way. Neither choice—vaccinated only or both—is unscientific. (It is understandable that, without reliable proof, the unvaccinated would be barred.)

In any case, this is a problem we need to solve soon. The mRNA platform looks promising. We don’t want to back into a future where a diseased minority is barred from our urban cores. Particularly if they pose little risk to others.

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

#204

Post by abnorxiouster » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

seoaeu wrote: post #140

abnorxiouster wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Vaccination guarantees some immunity for all existing variants. Just because it is impossible to say for all hypothetical future variants doesn't mean you need to spread misinformation like that

Why do you misinform ? This discusson has already been done here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28317866

The covid vaccine works more like a laser providing immunity to a specific variant. It does not guarantee "some" immunity for the other variants. Instead new vaccines are created to target the other specific variants which is what companies like pfizer already work on by the way.

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

#205

Post by aww_dang » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #177

aww_dang wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

Thanks for your response.

>It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people

However there are unprecedented measures taken today. We're nearly 2 years into lockdowns. Moratoriums on rent, unemployment subsidies, massive increases in gov spending and a host of other unprecedented economic interventions.

There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly. If obesity is a risk factor and we have a "collective responsibility", then why hasn't the gov mandated exercise?

>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...

And if this were untrue, where would we see this information? Are there no other incentives we should be considering, such as the great reset, vaccine passports, digital ID, CBDCs or even vanilla economic interventions? We're dealing with a trust deficit in public figures and media institutions. It is hard to blame the cynic for previous incidents of propaganda.

> The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths.

I'm not convinced a voluntary quarantine of high risk groups would be more harmful medically or economically. The response has caused incalculable economic damage and disruption of individual's lives.

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

#206

Post by deelowe » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

jlmorton wrote: post #92

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…

What is the harm? "I'm very worried about getting Covid, but I'm also worried about the vaccine, so I'll get Covid to protect me against Covid?" This is an important public health topic to model how the pandemic proceeds as more and more are naturally infected.

That's exactly it. Almost everyone in my immediate family is more concerned about getting the vaccine than they are covid. And this is AFTER someone in the family has died from it. It is extremely concerning how bad this has gotten. My own mother literally had a panic attack after getting her first shot. My kids' school administrators are making decisions based on these illogical conclusions. I have had school staff tell me that it's best that they all go ahead and get covid. They compared it to chicken pox parties from the 80s. When I mentioned shingles, they told me that was a different disease. I have an at risk child at home. My tolerance for stupidity is waning.

I'm afraid the general publicly is woefully underequipped to engage in nuanced discussions around this topic. They need simple and clear instructions.

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

#207

Post by sjg007 » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #116

jlmorton wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the harm? "I'm very worried about getting Covid, but I'm also worried about the vaccine, so I'll get Covid to protect me against Covid?" This is an important public health topic to model how the pandemic proceeds as more and more are naturally infected.

The heart of the issue, and the one we seem most unable to talk about productively is "I'm worried about the vaccine".

In Minnesota 645k people had covid and 7k died. In contrast 3M are vaccinated and basically nobody has died from the vaccine. In the US 363M vaccine doses have been given and about 7k may have died from vaccination side effects vs 628k who have died from covid from covid.

So the vaccine is safe and effective.

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

#208

Post by mbg721 » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 3:23 PM UTC

alunchbox wrote: post #196

hncurious wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

"Do this willingly and this can all be over...okay, that didn't work, now we're going to make you" isn't exactly what I'd call treating someone like an adult.

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

#209

Post by raffraffraff » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 3:23 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #174

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"

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.

Yes, but strategically we should probably write headlines that be can't taken out of context to disingenuously argue that they "prove" that vaccines are worthless.

Anyway, re-reading your point... My headline wasn't intended to be aimed at any person. It's a hypothetical statement about covid immunity level after surviving covid. Glad I didn't go into journalism.

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

#210

Post by tootie » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 3:24 PM UTC

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.

You're right. Data is data. That being said there is a pretty irrational contingent on HN these days.