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

221–230 of 371 posts

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

#221

Post by SamBam »

peteradio wrote: post #89
peterbonney wrote: post #63

The term ”survivor bias” is usually used metaphorically, but in this case it applies literally. Putting in some caveats about the risks associated with infection is not enough. This is a garbage analysis that should never have been accepted for publication.

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…

You haven't read the replied upthread where people use research like this to suggest "Corona parties" (like chickenpox parties) and how many people think it's safer to catch the virus than get the vaccine?

This article will absolutely not just be used by already-infected people trying to make a decision.

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

#222

Post by kemayo »

abnorxiouster wrote: post #204
seoaeu wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The discussion on that post seems to support the grandparent, not you. Also, the article it's talking about says

> The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an infection.

I.e. the current vaccines are not laser-focused, but are in fact less focused than a natural infection response, meaning they're better at covering against variants.

The most charitable read I can think of for your comments is that you're taking "immunity" to mean only the absolute you-cannot-catch-this-at-all level. Whereas the vaccines (and natural immunity) work far more on a gradient -- your immune system is primed to fight the disease off, and so your outcome at every stage is better than it would otherwise have been.

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

#223

Post by tootie »

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.

RTFA

> 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 had the virus and were still unvaccinated.

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

#224

Post by peteradio »

raffraffraff wrote: post #209
koheripbal wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed, the original paper title is more appropriate: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

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

#225

Post by myko »

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.

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

I don't disagree with it being relevant but if one reads just the title of this article and had previously been infected they may believe they do not need to be vaccinated, but that isn't the case.

According to this study folks who were infected previously are more than 2x as likely to be reinfected than those who were previously infected and then vaccinated: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...

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

#226

Post by SamBam »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #111
zzleeper wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's because people draw the wrong conclusions. Sure, if your body was stuck fighting COVID19 for two weeks and you then survived (i.e. excluding those pesky 700k Americans who didn't make it), then you are better prepared than if your body was stuck "fighting" COVID19 vaccine for half a day (of sleepiness or at most mild fever). The PROBLEM is that people then say "oh well then to protect myself better again…

> The PROBLEM is that people then say "oh well then to protect myself better against COVID19 what I should do is get infected Both approaches carry risk, yet your statement presents as if the risk of vaccination is 0. And also excludes the idea that opting not to be vaccinated is a legitimate choice for the millions and millions of “cases” that have already been infected.

The risks of the vaccine have been shown to be a minuscule fraction of the risks of being infected with covid.

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

#227

Post by koheripbal »

newsclues wrote: post #88
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?

If you got Covid before vaccines were available that risk assessment is irrelevant. If you get COVID after vaccination, your immune system may not learn how to fight COVID-19 as well, because the vaccine is present and doing something.

If you develop covid-19 symptomatic disease after vaccination, you will likely still get natural immunity.

The immune system "doing something" is why you feel sick.

The vaccine fighting the virus doesn't make you feel sick because it's just antibodies clumping on virus particles, preventing them from infecting cells.

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

#228

Post by matmatmatmat »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #191
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.

> 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 w…

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

For better and for worse, this is not true with most people. Most people are most open to changing their viewpoints if you engage them in a manner where you try to take their side, first, and then lead them in a new direction.

Straight facts might work best for you, but I'm afraid they're pretty much a sure-fire away to turn off most adults who've already made up their minds and don't already agree with you.

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

#229

Post by nradov »

walterbell wrote: post #148
gammarator wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serological tests have consistently shown that far fewer people have had COVID than have been vaccinated, for instance.

What's a good source of those numbers?

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...

The CDC estimates that 36% of Americans have been infected.

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

#230

Post by shadowgovt »

peteradio wrote: post #89
peterbonney wrote: post #63

The term ”survivor bias” is usually used metaphorically, but in this case it applies literally. Putting in some caveats about the risks associated with infection is not enough. This is a garbage analysis that should never have been accepted for publication.

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…

peterbonney's right for exactly the reasons that the public trying to reason its way through interpreting studies like this unaided is dangerous to public health.

This is an observational study. It's not possible for it to control for (among other things) the possibility that those who were infected and survived already possessed enhanced natural immunity due to some other cause. All we know is that people who get COVID-19 and don't die from it are less likely to become symptomatic with the delta variant than people who are inoculated, not whether or not they were always less likely to become symptomatic with the delta variant.

People who interpret this study to mean "I don't need the vaccine" are really rolling the dice on the possibility that there's an X-factor here to COVID-19 survival... And they don't have it.

Post reply on HN