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

#291

Post by cogman10 » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

angelzen wrote: post #280

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…

Wild. 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 13.1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma…

> However, preemptively restricting the rights of healthy people, just because they may eventually catch a disease, is unheard of.

It is not. In fact, most quarantines take exactly that form where entire households, communities, or in the extreme case cities are locked down. [1]

COVID is unique in that it is both more deadly and more infectious than the flu. That's why the measures have been so extreme. They are warranted.

Further, COVID has the major issue that a large number of people are asymptomatic. It doesn't work to say "Well, just have people feeling sick stay home" when a large number of people that are spreading the disease don't even know they have it. [2]

> 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'.

I was perhaps unclear, I mean "being infected with a disease removes your right to participate in public". Without the disease modifier, yes, you have a right to public interaction. Just like you have a right to drive without the drunk modifier.

In any event, even the UN agrees that quarantining seemingly healthy people in the face of covid isn't a human rights violation. [3]

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html

[2] https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-deta...

[3] https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/guidance_on_quaran...

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

#292

Post by macksd » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

AndrewBissell wrote: post #275

macksd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it was widely reported that natural immunity lasted 3 to 6 months and that the vaccines would last 2 years (at least Moderna), and the nuances there I think would be lost on a lay person. I even had an immunologist explain to me in detail why the immunity from the vaccine would be way stronger than acquired immunity. It doesn't really build confidence in science if, while we're finding new things, everyone pre…

I think we're in agreement here -- I did not mean to imply that a lay person following the claims bandied about in the mass media this year would have been under this impression. In fact, six months ago a claim like this would have been likely to be labeled misinformation on Twitter. I'm just saying that for the Covid vaccines to have provided better immunity than recovery from infection would have been very divergen…

Okay but when I was asking questions about why we didn't expect booster shots from the mRNA vaccines, that is the opposite of what and immunologist at my local hospital told me. So I'm not sure it is obvious.

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

#293

Post by AndrewBissell » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 5:52 PM UTC

kiba wrote: post #232

aww_dang wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> These are ineffective because of people's refusal to cooperate.

In what sense is this not an unfalsifiable hypothesis? Are cases exploding in Japan because of the 1% of people who don't wear masks in public there? Are Australia and New Zealand trapped in dystopian house arrest because there are just boatloads of degenerates who won't follow the rules?

What the hell good is a public health intervention if it requires an impossibly perfect 100% level of compliance to even work? And crumbles to pieces the second you relax the restriction?

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

#294

Post by actually_a_dog » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 5:54 PM UTC

myko wrote: post #190

myko wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because previously-infected people tend to experience worse vaccine side-effects for little to no additional benefit? This is not the case. Research it yourself: "Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVI…

Folks who are downvoting, please engage with my comments instead.

FYI, it doesn't pay to make these kinds of comments here. People will downvote both your comment asking why they downvoted, and your original comment. You're just exposing yourself to almost twice as many downvotes, while few people will bother to explain themselves.

I have personal experience with this.

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

#295

Post by actually_a_dog » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 5:58 PM UTC

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…

It means that, statistically, for purposes of determining the safety of the vaccine, her death counts for such a tiny amount that it's effectively zero evidence against the vaccine.

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

#296

Post by thehappypm » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

nickandre wrote: post #220

dabbledash wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you can see from some previous replies, it’s because people are less concerned with what’s true than with how (they believe) information will influence the behavior of others. The apparent prevalence of this attitude in media and public health is eroding the credibility of those institutions, imo.

Sort of like when the FDA insinuates that Ivermectin is unsafe because it has also been used by veterinarians in addition to its human indications.

Off-topic but does anyone have a mechanism by which Ivermectin would be helpful with Coronavirus? It seems bizarre that an anti-parasite medicine targeting a eukaryote would have any efficacy against a virus.

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

#297

Post by cogman10 » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

AndrewBissell wrote: post #293

kiba wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> These are ineffective because of people's refusal to cooperate. In what sense is this not an unfalsifiable hypothesis? Are cases exploding in Japan because of the 1% of people who don't wear masks in public there? Are Australia and New Zealand trapped in dystopian house arrest because there are just boatloads of degenerates who won't follow the rules ? What the hell good is a public health intervention if it requir…

If 10% or 20% weren't following the rules, it'd probably be fine.

However, because COVID in the US is a political thing, it's easily 30%+ of americans that aren't "following the rules". In my state of Idaho, there were rallies to get together and burn masks. [1]

Have you ever heard of mask burning rallies in either Japan or Australia?

It's not political in most nations. This is primarily a US problem.

Anecdotally, at the height of COVID compliance in Idaho I never saw > 50% masking participation.

[1] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/03/08/mask-burning-idaho-or...

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

#298

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

swader999 wrote: post #197

BoxOfRain wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#299

Post by myko » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

bananabiscuit wrote: post #268

myko wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 an…

Reducing a 1% chance of re-infection to .5% does not imply that population needs to get vaccinated.

This is why we rely on medical professionals to inform these decisions and they do say the population should be vaccinated:

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/people-whove-had-covi...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/09/covid-...

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

#300

Post by angelzen » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #291

angelzen wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wild. 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 13.1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma…

> However, preemptively restricting the rights of healthy people, just because they may eventually catch a disease, is unheard of. It is not. In fact, most quarantines take exactly that form where entire households, communities, or in the extreme case cities are locked down. [1] COVID is unique in that it is both more deadly and more infectious than the flu. That's why the measures have been so extreme. They are warr…

'quarantine' comes from Italian 'quarantina': ‘forty days’. It's not 'persempre'. By its very name it implies a time limited action.

Link 3 does not support your point: 'The term “quarantine” refers to the separation and restriction of movement of non-sick persons to see if they become sick.'. There is no blanket support for indefinite restriction of rights.

Furthermore, the 'line' is muddy. Vaccines are only 66% effective against delta. This means that 33% of vaccinated people are, under your definition, walking public health risks that may catch covid and start shedding virus in the population. Thus we should also indefinitely quarantine vaccinated people.

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/2021082...