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

241–250 of 371 posts

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

#241

Post by wankerrific »

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…

Just like encouraging people to run around unvaccinated and mask free keeps your donors who make a $2000 per treatment Regeneron very happy.

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

#242

Post by SamBam »

peteradio wrote: post #233
SamBam wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, but it should make clear that this study is absolutely not recommending getting infected over getting vaccinated.

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

#243

Post by richrichardsson »

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…

Search for "people don't change their views based on facts" with your engine of choice for a plethora of articles that confirm the query.

I don't remember the source but I read recently that peer pressure is far more likely to change someones mind about a given subject.

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

#244

Post by shadowgovt »

peteradio wrote: post #237
shadowgovt wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I see they recovered. You're correct... One interpretation could be that a high percentage of X-factor was present in this study's recovered group. But since we don't know what the X-factor is, an unvaccinated person is rolling dice by assuming they have it.

Nothing about this study guarantees an unvaccinated individual survives a brush with COVID-19; it suggests they're likely to survive a second brush with it (and likelier still if they get vaccinated).

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

#245

Post by ProjectBarks »

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.

The original title of the paper was "Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections." It's important to point out that the paper isn't just one fact but a collection of facts that form nuance.

To me science mags title is much more sensationalistic and there is a reason they did not chose a title more closely aligned to what the authors of the original study chose.

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

#247

Post by nradov »

NhanH wrote: post #219
nradov wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The only reason that the other four endemic human coronaviruses don't kill many people today is that most of us get infected as children and build up natural immunity which protects us later. But they can still be deadly to people with weak immune systems. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7102597/ Obviously most people weren't infected with SARS-CoV-2 as children so the smart move is to get vacci…

That paper did not age well.

Some of their numbers are a bit off due to lack of data early in the pandemic. For example they stated COVID-19 mortality rate as 1.3%, whereas we now know that in the US it was only 0.6%. But qualitatively their conclusions still seem to have aged well.

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

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

#249

Post by peteradio »

shadowgovt wrote: post #244
peteradio wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I see they recovered. You're correct... One interpretation could be that a high percentage of X-factor was present in this study's recovered group. But since we don't know what the X-factor is, an unvaccinated person is rolling dice by assuming they have it. Nothing about this study guarantees an unvaccinated individual survives a brush with COVID-19; it suggests they're likely to survive a second brush with it (and…

I see what you are saying.

The study is not relevant for unvaccinated and uninfected people.

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

#250

Post by Scoundreller »

tootie wrote: post #223
roenxi wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is still a good argument against double-vaccinating them, at least when vaccines were hard to come by (which is still the case in most of the world).

At least that’s how France does it, and that strategy might come in handy again as they plan to give boosters with influenza vaccines to everyone over 65.

Post reply on HN