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

311–320 of 371 posts

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

#311

Post by myko »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #294
myko wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I appreciate your reply, thanks.

Still, I would like to help bring the level of discourse on the site up and hopefully some folks are influenced by my comment to abide by the guidelines and engage.

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

#312

Post by nybble41 »

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…

Don't forget:

Article 29. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. ... In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. ... These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Which between them basically nullify articles 1 though 28 to the extent that the infringement can be justified on the basis of "morality" or "public order" or "duties the community"… which is how governments aiming to present themselves as anything more than petty criminal gangs have always justified violating human rights, with or without the UDHR.

Regarding the original quote, though:

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

You do have a right to participate in the public—or more precisely, no one has the right to stop you from interacting voluntarily with whichever members of the public you choose, so long as the other parties consent to the interaction. However, if that participation in the public leads to you getting someone else sick through your own negligence or reckless disregard for others' welfare then you are morally responsible for the consequences of that infection and liable to make the injured party whole, or as close to whole as they can possibly get. Ergo, you ought to take steps to ensure that doesn't happen, for example though vaccination, for your own sake as well as others'.

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

#313

Post by myko »

bananabiscuit wrote: post #306
myko wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I disagree and there are also doctors and experts that disagree. There is no reason to assume medical experts are free of groupthink. There is also no reason to assume the medical industrial and related government regulators are free from corruption. Which makes it all the more important to question the advice we are given by “experts” and ask if it makes any sense. To me it doesn’t.

There is no reason to assume that medical professionals are corrupt in encouraging people to be vaccinated, either. Especially given that the data shows better protection among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.

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

#314

Post by koheripbal »

myko wrote: post #299
bananabiscuit wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I generally agree, but it's important to remember that public health officials are not infallible.

In the beginning of the pandemic, most of them told us NOT to wear masks.

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

#315

Post by [deleted] »

angelzen wrote: post #303
CarelessExpert wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a. Take the vaccine and be naked when the vaccine resistant variant eventually emerges. First, this is deeply deeply misleading, to the point of being misinformation. The idea that a version of COVID will pop out that renders the current vaccines completely useless is founded in nothing but alarmist speculation. Could it happen? Maybe. But we have a virus now that's known to be dangerous, for which we have a vaccin…

This is also a possibility. The open scenario is: take the vaccine, don't get a breakthrough case (vaccines work as intended and quickly suppress it), but do get a vaccine-resistant infection later on. If there is more information on the long-term behavior of the immune system conditioned on vaccines and/or natural immunity and/or mutations, please share. My understanding is that nobody has a complete understanding a…

[deleted]

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

#316

Post by nybble41 »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #281
pacbard wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher The denominator in those odds ratios seem to fishy to me. Comparing people who were previously infected with COVID and vaccine recipients does some weird conditioning on getting COVID, so it should hide risks of developing symptomatic COVID and hospitalization for people who got CO…

> Also also, isn't it something that is known that natural immunity is better than vaccine-acquired immunity? Yes, I pointed this out elsewhere in the thread, but it has somehow been verboten until very recently to state it in regards to Covid. My brother-in-law was even told by the people administering his vaccine that having had a prior Covid case put him at more risk and made it even more essential that he get vac…

It does not seem unreasonable to me to extrapolate that people who caught COVID-19 once are more likely, as a group, to be exposed to it again in the future. That would be a matter of their environment rather than their individual resistance to the virus. I haven't seen any studies on that issue, though.

In any case the vaccine is safe, effective, and way better than actually catching COVID-19. And in the event that you did already recover from COVID-19, getting the vaccine doesn't hurt and will boost your immunity even further. So—unless you have a specific medical condition which dramatically increases your changes of an adverse reaction–you should just get the vaccine.

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

#317

Post by peterbonney »

tootie wrote: post #277
peterbonney wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s math for the sake of math with no actual scientific value. Here, let me help: “Car crash survivors show greater seat belt compliance than people who watch a seat belt PSA.” Useless analysis.

That's the wrong analogy. Seat belts only work while you're wearing them. They don't prevent crashes. Imagine if the study found the opposite conclusion. That vaccines produced a stronger immune response than a live infection. We'd have a whole different take if that were the result so it's extremely valuable to have an answer.

You’re missing my point. We know nothing about the sample that was excluded (the people who died). Were the survivors already more prone to wearing seat belts, or did the accident change their behavior?

In the Covid case, is the sample more weighted towards people who are more naturally prone to have a robust immune response (in contrast to the missing sample, I.e. everyone who died), or is the disease alone responsible for the immune response?

It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison, so no valid conclusions can be drawn.

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

#318

Post by myko »

koheripbal wrote: post #314
myko wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I generally agree, but it's important to remember that public health officials are not infallible. In the beginning of the pandemic, most of them told us NOT to wear masks.

Totally. The key is, once new information comes in to base decisions on the updated information. I'm glad that our public health officials are doing so.

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

#319

Post by sleavey »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #278
polote wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so what ? We should lie so that they take it ?

You appear to believe it would be immoral to lie to people to get them to take the vaccine. I don't believe anti-vaxxers want to die from COVID. Is it not also immoral to allow people who don't wish to die to die needlessly? It would seem to be a "lesser of two evils" sort of situation, and, in that case, the harm of lying is probably less than the harm of allowing people to die senselessly.

I don't want to be lied to in any form by my government. I believe they can always govern by telling the truth, and if they did so they would find themselves commanding more respect from the people.

I suggest, if you are unfamiliar with his work, that you read up on Kant's categorical imperative, in particular his absolute prohibition against lying. He argues that lying, even noble lying, is bad because it dehumanises the ones being lied to. If we stop treating each other as humans with rights, needs and desires, we will find ourselves in a very bad place - history has shown us that.

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

#320

Post by actually_a_dog »

nanis wrote: post #288
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order for those numbers to align to such a point where vaccines are more deadly we'd need to either have 1000x more vaccine related deaths or 1000x more infections undetected. Which do you think it would be?

From the perspective of the person who's been OK since the beginning, those numbers don't really matter. What matters is that they are fine now, they've been fine for a while, and now they are being coerced into taking an action which they don't think will benefit them and might hurt them worse than whatever their experience has been. Do not expect resistance to coercion to melt away when you dial up coercion. Add to…

Nobody's being coerced to do anything. They have the completely free choice to take the shot, or not. Either way, they must accept the consequences of their choice. This is not coercion; nobody's holding any guns to anyone's heads or holding people down and forcing the shot on them. What's being dialed up is the severity of consequences of not taking the shot.
Post reply on HN