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

231–240 of 371 posts

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

#231

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

nanis wrote: post #218
VBprogrammer wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2.5 billion people have had at least one vaccine.

> 2.5 billion people have had at least one vaccine. Does that mean Lisa Shaw did not die? Or that we would still have known about the cause of her death if she were not well known? Or, is the number of people who are vaccinated enough of a reason to ignore the concerns of people who got Covid19 and recovered? How much of "long Covid19" due to horrendous treatment at hospitals of Covid19 patients with unnecessary intu…

> The clots are considered extremely rare - there have been 417 reported cases and 72 deaths - after 24.8 million first doses and 23.9 million second doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK.

That's 72 deaths among millions. You're trying to describe COVID as "given low risk to an otherwise well person", but you're still off by many orders of magnitude. Using this site[1] we see that he current 0-59 death rate is 0.2%. That would be nearly 100,000 dead to get a comparable rate.

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

#232

Post by kiba »

aww_dang wrote: post #205
cogman10 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

These are ineffective because of people's refusal to cooperate. These methods work best if we work together. Because some people chose to ignore measures, it means we're prolonging the misery.

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?

Because the least vulnerable and healthy population can spread diseases to the obese and the elderly.

Exercise is a useful health intervention. It's also not very effective for losing weight. It's also the government's fault that we are obese to begin with, because the governments are responsible for urban design, dietary and market regulation.

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.

It is unclear to me why only partial quarantine would be useful. It just means that the virus are spreading among the healthy. The moment we stop the quarantine, the moment people starts dying.

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

#233

Post by peteradio »

SamBam wrote: post #221
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…

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.

You are right, but are you suggesting this should be censored? This is important information that is very relevant to a sizable population.

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

#234

Post by acituan »

sjg007 wrote: post #207
Buttons840 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No one in this forum says otherwise.

But you miss human emotions 101: If someone tells you they are worried about something, you don’t throw facts at them as the first thing. You ask them to tell more about their emotions, hear them and make them feel heard. They might as well be missing factual data (as the case with vaccine hesitating folks) but their emotions are real, and unless they are treated as a person they’d be close to influence because they are in a skeptic, anxious state to begin with.

Often people barge in like performing an exorcism expecting the power of data compelling the “possessed” demonized other to the “light”. Such vilification is a self-fulfilling process.

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

#235

Post by archagon »

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…

> RNA injections are, apparently, only good for 90 days

Er, what?

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

#236

Post by SamBam »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #18
blablablub wrote: post #8

Survivorship bias comes to mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Not sure how that's really relevant when over 99% of people in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts do not die from Covid.

32,000 people in the study, of which 16,000 had previously had Covid.

They found a total of 238 re-infections.

Assuming 1% mortality from Covid, that group of 16,000 would have previously been 16,162, before being culled down to the study size by deaths.

You don't think an additional 162 would make a difference to the results?

(Obviously it doesn't make a difference if you read this study as "given someone survived Covid, what are the odds..." but lots of people are reading this study as "It's safer to catch Covid than get vaccinated." Given that, the deaths absolutely matter.)

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

#237

Post by peteradio »

shadowgovt wrote: post #230
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…

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 CO…

Apparently a high percentage of X-factor was present in this study. Do you see something funny in the demographics of the recovered?

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

#238

Post by obelos »

vibrato2 wrote: post #91
jjuel wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also realize the disease has only been around for maybe around 2 years at most? So we really have no long term data on effects from getting COVID naturally either. Considering we have plenty of data on other vaccines being quite safe in the long term. I would rather play that game than the "I am relatively healthy so I'll risk getting a deadly disease" I am aware I could still get COVID while vaccinated, but I…

We have no encouraging long term data from any mRNA therapy. this is brand new. The animal tests were concerning to put it mildly. Your chances of serious illness are lower for now. ADE shows dose dependent acceleration, so by the 4th or 5th booster it may be a different story.

What animal tests? Are there even any hypothesized mechanisms by which an mRNA therapy, as a general method, would produce long term consequences? It's fragile and decomposes in the body over the course of a couple weeks, leaving no trace except whatever proteins the sequence describes. That's not to say the specific proteins produced couldn't engender longer-term consequences, but I'm missing how that can be generalized to human-devised mRNA in total.

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

#239

Post by ubercore »

newsclues wrote: post #141
esteth wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccine isn't doing anything in your body to fight COVID-19 infection actively. Your immune system is doing the fighting regardless.

That is not what I said. “ your immune system may not learn how to fight COVID-19 as well, because the vaccine is present and doing something.”

But the vaccine being present isn't "doing something". The thing it did has already happened.

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

#240

Post by heavyarms »

In other news:

Having a $3 million mansion at the beach confers much greater happiness than an affordable house in the suburbs!

Having a new top-of-the-line Mercedes SUV confers much greater status than a used Honda minivan!

Having a beautiful face and 6-pack abs confers much greater attractiveness than looking like Shrek!

There are two mutually exclusive questions at play here... and I'm totally convinced the population at large has ability to discern the difference and not conflate one with the other.

1. What is the best/strongest/longest lasting type of immunity, natural or vaccine?

2. What is the safest type of immunity, natural or vaccine?

Is natural immunity better? There's some data to show it is. Should you risk your life to get? Probably not.

Post reply on HN