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

341–350 of 371 posts

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

#341

Post by nybble41 »

angelzen wrote: post #326
nybble41 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, publi…

Got it. There are no human rights. Thanks for spelling it out for the rest of us.

How did you read that into my comment? There certainly are human rights. The UDHR just doesn't protect them nearly as well as it should. Eliminating the limitations that articles 29 and 30 impose on the rights enumerated in the rest of the document would be a good start, along with certain other contradictions (articles 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.1-2, 27.2, and 28—you can't have a natural right to services which someone else would have to provide to you; that implies slavery, which is contrary to article 4) and some irrelevant commentary (articles 13.3, 25.2) about the authors' preferences about how society is organized which has no bearing on human rights. But the first 20 articles are mostly fine. They should have just stopped there.

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

#342

Post by angelzen »

nybble41 wrote: post #341
angelzen wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got it. There are no human rights. Thanks for spelling it out for the rest of us.

How did you read that into my comment? There certainly are human rights. The UDHR just doesn't protect them nearly as well as it should. Eliminating the limitations that articles 29 and 30 impose on the rights enumerated in the rest of the document would be a good start, along with certain other contradictions (articles 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.1-2, 27.2, and 28—you can't have a natural right to services which someone else…

Sorry. I quoted a somewhat non-controversial source, then didn't pick up that you were rightfully describing that UDHR is weak, not prescribing that human rights are obsolete unless we all just take the vaccine.

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

#343

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

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.

“You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously y’all. Stop it.”

FDA… You approved the drug for use in humans and it has less side effects than acetaminophen / paracetamol… y’all.

That was bs from the FDA, but it’s ok because the folksy “y’all” is endearing to who I assume they were internally calling ”flyover hicks self-medicating with horse paste”.

All they had to say was we have not approved this medication for covid and the animal applications are not approved for use in humans, their dosages can be very dangerous.

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

#344

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

aww_dang wrote: post #213
mbg721 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do this willingly and this can all be over...okay, that didn't work, now we're going to make you" isn't exactly what I'd call treating someone like an adult.

I'm not convinced the biosecurity state will go away anymore than the TSA will disappear tomorrow. Government agencies rarely cede power back to the citizenry.

Every single government, bureaucracy, expert, official, authority in anyway all gained power during covid. A lot of them “discovering” powers they had no idea they had (CDC, evictions).

I agree it’s unlikely anyone will give it up willingly.

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

#345

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

deelowe wrote: post #206
jlmorton wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the harm? "I'm very worried about getting Covid, but I'm also worried about the vaccine, so I'll get Covid to protect me against Covid?" This is an important public health topic to model how the pandemic proceeds as more and more are naturally infected.

That's exactly it. Almost everyone in my immediate family is more concerned about getting the vaccine than they are covid. And this is AFTER someone in the family has died from it. It is extremely concerning how bad this has gotten. My own mother literally had a panic attack after getting her first shot. My kids' school administrators are making decisions based on these illogical conclusions. I have had school staff…

I wish I was more surprised about how easily covid made people rationalize authoritarianism.

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

#346

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

wankerrific wrote: post #241
sk2020 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this a dig on Fauci who just decided he recommendeds it?

Or on DeSantis who has a investment firm donor who is not even in the top100 investors in the antibody treatment company?

Side question, do you fall for smear campaigns without fact checking the claims yourself?

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

#347

Post by acituan »

sjg007 wrote: post #322
acituan wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are more likely to get hurt or die in car accident on the way to get your vaccine then from the vaccine itself. After that car accident when you are in the hospital recovering you will probably get covid there.

I don't see the relevance of your point. Perhaps you replied to the wrong thread or misunderstood what you've read?

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

#348

Post by tootie »

peterbonney wrote: post #317
tootie wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 responsi…

That's still irrelevant. They asked a specific question and got an answer. That answer adds to our knowledge. That's it. We already have data telling us how many people who contract covid will have life-threatening symptoms without treatment.

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

#349

Post by TimTheTinker »

sharken wrote: post #340
richrichardsson wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As long as the approach is respectful and not manipulative... anything less will backfire.

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

#350

Post by sjg007 »

acituan wrote: post #347
sjg007 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are more likely to get hurt or die in car accident on the way to get your vaccine then from the vaccine itself. After that car accident when you are in the hospital recovering you will probably get covid there.

I don't see the relevance of your point. Perhaps you replied to the wrong thread or misunderstood what you've read?

The point is to translate it into a related human experience vs "throwing out a bunch of numbers and data".
Post reply on HN