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

351–360 of 371 posts

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

#351

Post by acituan »

sjg007 wrote: post #350
acituan wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Not only you are still throwing bunch of numbers and data only this time using comparatives ("more likely"), you seem to have also mistaken me as someone in need of convincing, which shows you haven't listened to what I've said careful enough to understand it. If I was a person that needed to be convinced, I would trust you even less just on that basis.

Finally you make the assumption that people have a problem with understanding the propositions. I'm saying they have a problem with not being heard about their emotions. You've just demonstrated that, in addition to not listening well.

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

#352

Post by [deleted] »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #274
bavell wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, no. Hiding facts from responsible adults is a great way to breed resistance to any subject being discussed. Stop infantilizing your neighbors.

You seem to be assuming that anti-vaxxers are responsible adults.

[deleted]

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

#353

Post by criticaltinker »

thehappypm wrote: post #296
nickandre wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So far a multitude of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tried but not found significant benefits from using Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in a single-drug treatment regime.

However it's worth noting that certain multi-drug treatment regimes are looking quite promising [1][2].

Furthermore, early multi-drug treatment (before severe symptoms) using existing widely available medicines has been proven effective at reducing hospitalization and death [3][4][5][6][7]. Many front-line doctors have been using such techniques since the beginning of the pandemic, because they had to - as there were no vaccines yet and no RCTs to guide them so naturally the only option was using and combining existing medicines with established safety and efficacy profiles, the same strategy used for other difficult to treat diseases and cancers.

[1] Ivermectin in combination with doxycycline for treating COVID-19 symptoms: a randomized trial https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33983065/

[2] Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306283/

[3] Timing of Antiviral Treatment Initiation is Critical to Reduce SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/psp4.1...

[4] Clinical outcomes after early ambulatory multidrug therapy for high-risk SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?a...

[5] Early multidrug treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) and reduced mortality among nursing home (or outpatient/ambulatory) residents https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03069...

[6] Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

[7] Multidrug treatment for COVID-19 https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ddt/advpub/0/advpub_202...

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

#354

Post by [deleted] »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #274
bavell wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, no. Hiding facts from responsible adults is a great way to breed resistance to any subject being discussed. Stop infantilizing your neighbors.

You seem to be assuming that anti-vaxxers are responsible adults.

[deleted]

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

#355

Post by peterbonney »

tootie wrote: post #348
peterbonney wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does it add to our knowledge? That some sample of people have more antibodies than a non-equivalent sample? I could have told you that without a scientific study.

That same sample of people who had the illness may have had more, fewer or equal antibodies if they had not gotten sick and instead got vaccinated. This study does not tell us anything about which is the more likely possibility.

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

#356

Post by currysausage »

koheripbal wrote: post #276
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…

The other influence is the evolution of the virus itself. A longer lasting less-than-lethal infection is, in the long term, is selected for by evolutionary pressure. In the short term though the biggest selection pressure on the virus is vaccine evasion.

Longer lasting, sure. Less-than-lethal (or otherwise less harmful), not necessarily. Whether the host dies a few weeks after contracting the virus is not really relevant for transmissibility.

Actually, several viruses have evolved to become deadlier:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-011488089270

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/14/fac...

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...

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

#357

Post by aww_dang »

cogman10 wrote: post #252
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…

> There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly. The studies are still out, but early reports are showing that delta is hitting more than just the old and the fat [1]. In particular, pregnant woman seem to be at particularly high risk of death. [2] The problem with these communicable disease is they can mutate. Delta appears to be br…

>Because whether or not you exercise does not change your ability to spread COVID. It may improve your chances of survival but it does not change the burden one way or another on how you are affecting society around.

Yes, but under your theory of collectivism, we all have a responsibility to protect these obese individuals via authoritarian measures. Therefore, if they were not obese, we would not be burdened by the collective responsibility they impose upon us.

I'm disappointed that you've brought Trump into the discussion. I'm not a fan of the political classes as a rule, so it pains me to defend him here. He was recently panned for recommending the vaccine to his followers at a rally in Alabama.

As for autocracy, it seems a bit ironic to level this accusation in a discussion defending authoritarian lockdowns and medical interventions.

If you can't see any other problems with the mainstream political landscape outside of your focus on Mr. Trump, then there's really nothing more to say here. I could cite Iraqi WMD, Snowden's revelations, Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, the lab leak controversy or a number of other incidents, but it seems futile at this point.

When you play the Trump card you reveal your hand as a partisan.

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

#358

Post by tootie »

peterbonney wrote: post #355
tootie wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does it add to our knowledge? That some sample of people have more antibodies than a non-equivalent sample? I could have told you that without a scientific study. That same sample of people who had the illness may have had more, fewer or equal antibodies if they had not gotten sick and instead got vaccinated. This study does not tell us anything about which is the more likely possibility.

No you couldn't. You could have guessed but you wouldn't know. Now we have numbers. We know the level of immune response and the distribution. Like I said, imagine the opposite. If convalescence produced a weaker response than vaccines. That's equally possible and would have lead to some serious policy shift. Now we have a clear answer and can make informed decisions.

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

#359

Post by [deleted] »

peterbonney wrote: post #355
tootie wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does it add to our knowledge? That some sample of people have more antibodies than a non-equivalent sample? I could have told you that without a scientific study. That same sample of people who had the illness may have had more, fewer or equal antibodies if they had not gotten sick and instead got vaccinated. This study does not tell us anything about which is the more likely possibility.

[deleted]

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

#360

Post by peterbonney »

tootie wrote: post #358
peterbonney wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it add to our knowledge? That some sample of people have more antibodies than a non-equivalent sample? I could have told you that without a scientific study. That same sample of people who had the illness may have had more, fewer or equal antibodies if they had not gotten sick and instead got vaccinated. This study does not tell us anything about which is the more likely possibility.

No you couldn't. You could have guessed but you wouldn't know. Now we have numbers. We know the level of immune response and the distribution. Like I said, imagine the opposite. If convalescence produced a weaker response than vaccines. That's equally possible and would have lead to some serious policy shift. Now we have a clear answer and can make informed decisions.

I couldn’t have guessed that we could find two samples of people such that antibodies in one group exceeded antibodies in the other? That is true for any non-uniform data set.

As for your other point, I also maintain that the opposite finding would have told us equally little. Perhaps they had lower antibodies because they had less virulent variants/cases on average, which is why none of them died - again, “survivor bias”. It would still tell us nothing about how their immune response would compare between the case where they got sick and the case where they got vaccinated.

Edit: here is a simple challenge that can resolve this discussion in your favor. If you can tell me definitively what the expected antibody level for the survivor dataset was prior to this study, I will concede that you are right and this is a meaningful analysis.

Post reply on HN