Live data from Hacker News

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

sciencemag.org

331–340 of 371 posts

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

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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% eff…

> 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. What "rights" are is muddy. I'm not proposing an outright quarantine. Nobody is. However, I thought it prudent to point out that the "quarantining of healthy individuals" is not unique or un…

Perpetually quarantining certain classes of people is abject tyranny. Worse, the line is muddy: there are false positives (unvaccinated, but with solid post-covid immunity) and false negatives (vaccinated, but with breakthrough infections). Doing a 40 day isolation to see if there is an active outbreak is completely different than isolation in perpetuity: 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'.

I have yet to see medical evidence that vaccinating under 20s, for which the risk of covid-infection complications are vanishingly small, has significant positive effects for them. There are people that have already got covid, and their immunity to covid is much stronger than that of mRNA vaccinated people (see the OP article). These 2 classes of unvaccinated people should not be forced to undertake an unnecessary medical procedure with an unclear long-term risk profile.

Covid is endemic, there is no path to ZeroCovid. Thus population-level arguments are uncompelling: we are all going to be exposed to one or more covid strains during our lifetime. Given how post-infection immunity is strong (see the OP article), the bulk of the argument comes down to how to manage the first exposure.

Riddle me out: There are vaccines, they work really well, I am vaccinated, you probably are vaccinated. Vaccinate your loved ones. We are safe, to the extent of mRNA vaccines are long-term safe. Why do you have to insist that everyone has to take them, to the extent of proposing abject tyranny to accomplish this goal? What are you afraid of?

Not a rhetorical question, I stumbled upon an intriguing piece recently: https://thestoa.substack.com/p/ontological-flooding-towards-...

> The fears that come online for the COVID thesis: I fear dying from the virus and being responsible for the death of others. I also fear being called dumb for not understanding the science and shamed for being called a bad person by failing to act in ways that would protect others.

> The fears that come online for the COVID antithesis: I fear losing freedoms and giving my power away to top-down control structures that can slip into totalitarianism. I also fear being societally segregated and persecuted by those scapegoating me for this mess.

(If it wasn't clear yet, I also worry about a medical covid antithesis: for <20s, getting the mRNA vaccines is unnecessary and potentially long-term worse than doing nothing.)

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

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's say that an American municipality instituted a rule that people who profess Muslim beliefs are to be excluded from gathering in public establishments. No one would be physically forced to abandon their faith, and they would have the completely free choice to remain Islamic and accept the consequences. Would you not perceive any coercion here?

Correct. It's not coercion. The fact that it's wrong to discriminate against someone due to their religious faith and to violate peoples' right to free assembly is orthogonal to the question of whether it's coercive or not. In other words, this is a false equivalence.

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

#333
post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Umm. Presumably you've had the chickenpox vaccine, the TDAP vaccine, and a bunch of others as a kid as a condition to go to school. These have been well studied for decades. > but do get a vaccine-resistant infection later on. This is a redherring. This would be the equivalent to have never encountered covid and getting infected by that variant then. So you know maybe a new kid born in the next few months or somethin…

We are taking an open bet: will the vaccine resistant covid strain(s) that are likely to emerge be more/less virulent than Delta or not? I don't have a crystal ball, but given that we know that for <20s the risk of complications from Delta is vanishingly small, why take the bet?

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

#334
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.

This says that there was a viral Facebook post making claims about animal tests, which are very much wrong: https://fullfact.org/online/covid-vaccine-animal-testing/

Also, this says that the covid vaccines specifically passed animal trials: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-vaccine-anim...

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

#335
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the article was talking about the spike protein. I believe natural immunity also can target parts of SARS-CoV-19 that are not part of the spike protein. In that sense vaccines are more focused, but the focus is on a part of the virus that is critical for getting into cells. There are limits to how far the spike protein can mutate and still do its job and the vaccine immunity covers a large part of that spac…

> Note that the article was talking about the spike protein. I believe natural immunity also can target parts of SARS-CoV-19 that are not part of the spike protein. This is my understanding as well. Vaccine-derived immunity is more broad with respect to potential mutation of the spike protein/"receptor binding domain". Natural immunity is more broad with respect to the entire virus, as antibodies target areas other t…

It seems plausible, and I speak here as someone with no medical expertise whatsoever, that a vaccine-immunity that targets the spike protein and slows infection would still be pretty good at reducing symptoms as it would presumably slow the virus spreading inside you, giving your immune system a better chance to pick up on a specific-strain response before it's completely overwhelmed.

Given that there really does seem to be better outcomes for vaccinated people even when they have breakthrough infections, compared to completely-unvaccinated first-time-COVID-havers, there certainly seems to be something like that helping out.

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

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What "rights" are is muddy. I'm not proposing an outright quarantine. Nobody is. However, I thought it prudent to point out that the "quarantining of healthy individuals" is not unique or un…

Perpetually quarantining certain classes of people is abject tyranny. Worse, the line is muddy: there are false positives (unvaccinated, but with solid post-covid immunity) and false negatives (vaccinated, but with breakthrough infections). Doing a 40 day isolation to see if there is an active outbreak is completely different than isolation in perpetuity: 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. I have…

> Perpetually quarantining certain classes of people is abject tyranny.

Where do you see anyone proposing a perpetual quarantine? Do you feel we are currently under one?

> has significant positive effects for them

Because covid has something like a 1->2% mortality rate among the unvacinated, for 98%+ of the entire population a covid vaccine doesn't provide any positive effects.

Indeed, most diseases we vaccinate follow a similar pattern.

So why should any vaccination be applied?

At the end of the day it's a numbers game, the more people that are vaccinated and continue to keep their vaccinations up to date, the fewer people will be killed by illness. Vaccinations prevent more suffering than they cause. A little arm soreness is a small price to pay if it saves several lives.

This is especially important for herd immunity. The more people are vaccinated the more protected vulnerable populations are (including the vaccinated population).

> Covid is endemic, there is no path to ZeroCovid. Thus population-level arguments are uncompelling: we are all going to be exposed to one or more covid strains during our lifetime. Given how post-infection immunity is strong (see the OP article), the bulk of the argument comes down to how to manage the first exposure.

Sadly, I agree that we are past ever eliminating COVID. So next steps are what's reasonable.

With that, I think we aren't out of the woods for government and public actions against covid. We are currently in a state of being overwhelmed in our ICUs by covid. That says to me that masking and vaccination pushes should be pushed longer. Until we've exited the stage where our ICUs are overburdened it's hard to think that we should be lifting restrictions. [1]

> Riddle me out: There are vaccines, they work really well, I am vaccinated, you probably are vaccinated. Vaccinate your loved ones. We are safe, to the extent of mRNA vaccines are long-term safe. Why do you have to insist that everyone has to take them, to the extent of proposing abject tyranny to accomplish this goal? What are you afraid of?

I think saying that a vaccination mandate is "abject tyranny" is hyperbole. The vast majority of children have vaccine mandates against a bunch of diseases. Are they under an oppressive thumb? Are their lives ruined or harmed?

It is reasonable to push, and push hard, for people to be vaccinated. It isn't asking people to sell their souls, chop off an arm, or anything else. It's a small prick that you've been through. Anyone can get it, nobody is restricted from getting it.

The "tyranny" they'd experience by refusing to take the vaccine is the same sort of "tyranny" someone would experience if they decided to walk around a public park refusing clothing.

What freedoms are actually lost by a vaccine mandate? Vaccines aren't an inherent quality of anyone. It's not immutable like age or race. Tyranny is specifically persecution over aspects individuals can't control. Tyranny doesn't have a quick escape hatch of being poked in the arm.

The fact is, a switch out of the oppressed group takes 10 seconds.

The fear that this is a "slippery slope" is moot, because we already have vaccine mandates for other diseases. The only slip here is adding one more disease to the list.

You fear tyranny, can you see why I'd see that as irrational? Are you really afraid that the unvaccinated will be sent to the gas chambers? Even if this were a slope, how do you see the next steps of tyranny? "Oh, we mandated a vaccine and that went well, now let's round up the xxxxxx and oppress them!".

[1] https://www.kmvt.com/2021/08/18/covid-19-cases-are-rising-id...

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

#337

It would be great if the people who had covid and developed immunity will finally become recognized by governments on par with vaccinated. Currently, they virtually don't exist for governments and media in many countries who prefer to divide everybody into just two groups: vaccinated and anti-vaxxers. A third group does exist and deserves to be heard.

A fourth group: vaccinated with (potential) breakthrough infections. Non-trivial numbers, as the vaccine is only 66% effective in preventing covid infections. According to the manichean logic of the media, this group of people is an immediate public health danger, therefore must be subjected to the same draconian measures as the unvaccinated.

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

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perpetually quarantining certain classes of people is abject tyranny. Worse, the line is muddy: there are false positives (unvaccinated, but with solid post-covid immunity) and false negatives (vaccinated, but with breakthrough infections). Doing a 40 day isolation to see if there is an active outbreak is completely different than isolation in perpetuity: 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. I have…

> Perpetually quarantining certain classes of people is abject tyranny. Where do you see anyone proposing a perpetual quarantine? Do you feel we are currently under one? > has significant positive effects for them Because covid has something like a 1->2% mortality rate among the unvacinated, for 98%+ of the entire population a covid vaccine doesn't provide any positive effects. Indeed, most diseases we vaccinate foll…

abject tyranny = 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. I have a right to participate in society. My kids have a right to participate in society. Nobody can take away that right in perpetuity, under no circumstances. Including conditioning on (miraculous, but shoddy) mRNA vaccines.

Covid does not have 1-2% mortality rate among the unvaccinated. The difference between 70s is orders of magnitude. From BBC: 'Data from the first 12 months of the pandemic in England shows 25 under-18s died from Covid. [...] 13 living with complex neuro-disabilities [...] 6 had no underlying conditions recorded in the last five years. [...] 25 deaths in a population of some 12 million children in England gives a broad, overall mortality rate of 2 per million children.' For comparison, the death rate from drowning for 5-19s in US is 1/100k, 5x larger (20x if we only count healthy children). For 1-4s the drowning death rate is a calamitous 3/100k, 15x larger (60x if we only count healthy children). And that's just drowning.

We need to get a grip.

Traditional vaccines provide long term, often lifelong protection against nasty diseases. Some of them are sterilizing the virus, leading to eradication of the disease. mRNA vaccines do not prevent infection, do not prevent transmission, need a 6 month booster and are at risk of becoming obsolete and require a different vaccine strain (and then we boost each vaccine strain every 6 months?!)

> Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla told Fox it was likely a vaccine-resistant variant would emerge.

> Bourla said Pfizer could make a shot tailor-made for such a variant within 95 days of its discovery.

> The CDC director said the virus could be "a few mutations" away from evolving to evade vaccines.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db149.htm

https://www.insider.com/pfizer-ceo-vaccine-resistant-coronav...

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

#339
post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm. Presumably you've had the chickenpox vaccine, the TDAP vaccine, and a bunch of others as a kid as a condition to go to school. These have been well studied for decades. > but do get a vaccine-resistant infection later on. This is a redherring. This would be the equivalent to have never encountered covid and getting infected by that variant then. So you know maybe a new kid born in the next few months or somethin…

We are taking an open bet: will the vaccine resistant covid strain(s) that are likely to emerge be more/less virulent than Delta or not? I don't have a crystal ball, but given that we know that for <20s the risk of complications from Delta is vanishingly small, why take the bet?

All signs point to lambda being more virulent/deadly etc…. Still has nothing to do with the vaccines.

If covid mutates sufficiently fast, say as fast as HIV then we will have a big time problem.

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

#340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think the fact approach works well for rational and logical thinking persons.

As for the rest, yes other approaches must be employed instead.

Post reply on HN