Spread of Delta variant driven by both immune escape and increased infectivity • Hacker News Board

Re: Spread of Delta variant driven by both immune escape and increased infectivity

#101

Post by rspeele » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

nanis wrote: post #97

rspeele wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it as addressing two different concerns. Addressing somebody whose concern is "the vaccine might not be safe", it makes sense to point to the large number of people who have been given a dose and been fine. I don't think a lot of people are in the halfway point where they think 1 shot is safe but 2 shots are unsafe. Addressing somebody whose concern is "the vaccine might not be effective", it makes sense to loo…

> I don't think a lot of people are in the halfway point where they think 1 shot is safe but 2 shots are unsafe. In fact, there seems to be grounds to believe that people are extra susceptible to infection and illness during the period between the first shot and the two weeks following the second. Lumping people in that group are together with others who have never received a shot has the effect of keeping the number…

> In fact, there seems to be grounds to believe that people are extra susceptible to infection and illness during the period between the first shot and the two weeks following the second.

Can you link some data on that? That would certainly change things if you are at higher risk of illness than an unvaccinated person between getting the shot and immunity kicking in. The data I had seen like from the Pfizer trial[0] indicated that your immunity keeps pace with an unvaccinated person until about 2 weeks from the first shot, then surpasses that.

> Is it? Even if one has had Covid19?

For somebody who has had a confirmed positive case of COVID I don't think there's enough data to say confidently. As far as I know natural immunity is at least as good as vaccine immunity. The risk associated with getting vaccinated seems to be low enough that it's pretty harmless though. And anecdotally there are a lot of people who are "pretty sure that cold they had last year was COVID" but never got tested. I wouldn't want those people to conclude they shouldn't get vaccinated just because they think they might have natural immunity. Again, I don't assume malice just because a politician tries to keep their message simple.

[0]https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

Re: Spread of Delta variant driven by both immune escape and increased infectivity

#102

Post by sterlind » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

AzzieElbab wrote: post #58

The virus is here to stay, vaccines or no vaccines. We need to learn to treat it effectively or accept vaccine boosters every 6 months

I'm fine with vaccine boosters every six months. Please! Sign me up!

Re: Spread of Delta variant driven by both immune escape and increased infectivity

#103

Post by uslic001 » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 7:50 PM UTC

The current vaccines only provide systemic immunity but fail to provide mucosal immunity. Until they come up with a nasal vaccine plus the shots we will not stop COVID-19 as vaccinated people can still act as vectors of transmission.

Re: Spread of Delta variant driven by both immune escape and increased infectivity

#104

Post by uslic001 » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.6113... This explains why we need to develop a vaccine that provides mucosal immunity to defeat COVID.

Re: Spread of Delta variant driven by both immune escape and increased infectivity

#105

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 8:24 PM UTC

Lammy wrote: post #73

achenatx wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in the olden days dumb people just died and didnt reproduce. We have overcome a lot of natural selection so there are likely many more dumb people than in the past. We all share the same reality that you have a .5% chance of dying from covid. If you choose not to take lifesaving vaccinations then you are dumb, especially if you are in a high risk category where the risk of death is 1-5% Im not at all in favor of mand…

Why do we have to be so mean about it though? All the ableist language we throw around really saddens me https://campbellmgold.co.uk/archive_esoteric/morons_imbecile...

I think it is because we have a political structure that people to be increasingly accountable to the choices of others responsible for their mistakes. It breeds resentment and hatred.

Absent this structure, people would have no problem with an idiot making mistakes. Take that same person and make others pay for every mistake they make, and guess how people will respond.

Re: Spread of Delta variant driven by both immune escape and increased infectivity

#106

Post by listless » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

glugc wrote: post #37

clipradiowallet wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dumb people are going to want to go to covid parties When I was a child, parents would inform other parents when a child had chickenpox; so they could have a sleepover. That was normal practice in the portion of the USA I grew up in. As a result, nearly everyone my age has natural immunity to chickenpox. I share that anecdote to point out that the idea of an "infection party" is a really old idea that was practiced…

Now in 2021 we are going to force kids to interact with their peers with a facemask on to make sure they never get to build a competent immune system.

I’m with you on this. I think kids getting it is the key to us getting out of the cycle.

Despite media hysteria, the risk to children is extremely low. So low that the UK isn’t going to vaccinate most kids at all.

https://www.newsweek.com/uk-wont-vaccinate-most-children-tee...

Re: Spread of Delta variant driven by both immune escape and increased infectivity

#107

Post by gfodor » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

bredren wrote: post #38

gfodor wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is presently to my understanding a lot of claims of severity reduction, but I would like to see evidence and an explanation for it. My working model is that a consistent alternative explanation is the vaccine reduces infection risk dramatically but once infected severity can be the same.

I have seen this "alternative explanation" or variation on it used as an equivocation to justify the choice to go without being vaccinated. I recently saw a social media post of a person in an ICU with Covid expressing regret about not getting vaccinated, and urging others to get vaccinated. One of their "friends" commented in response to the post with parent's "alternative explanation." Would someone please share a…

The alternative explanation does not change P(severe infection|vaccinated), so doesn't change the nature of the choice to get vaccinated. But it would imply, if proven, that the claim that vaccines reduce severity is false.

If the alternative explanation is proven, it implies that people who are vaccinated and develop an infection should react to that news the same as an unvaccinated person. In other words, even if the alternative explanation doesn't influence the choice to get vaccinated, if it is true and we are saying it's false it would mean vaccinated people are more likely to die once infected because they've been led to believe it is not as serious a concern to be infected and will be less likely to, for example, notify their doctor as promptly or go to the ER given they have been informed their risk of severe infection is low.

Re: Spread of Delta variant driven by both immune escape and increased infectivity

#108

Post by gfodor » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #13

gfodor wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is presently to my understanding a lot of claims of severity reduction, but I would like to see evidence and an explanation for it. My working model is that a consistent alternative explanation is the vaccine reduces infection risk dramatically but once infected severity can be the same.

Lower hospitalization rates amongst the vaccinated seem to suggest less people are getting seriously ill.

No it suggests P(severe|vaccinated) is much lower than P(severe|unvaccinated) which isn't the same thing as saying the vaccines reduce P(severe|infected). It's funny I've been downvoted tho because it shows how tribalist people are about vaccines that they can't even understand an argument that has no influence on ex-ante vaccine risk assessment.

Re: Spread of Delta variant driven by both immune escape and increased infectivity

#109

Post by tzs » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 10:31 PM UTC

TheBlight wrote: post #98

cogman10 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is an important point. While the vaccinated are still getting COVID, and even sometimes ending up in the ICU, they very often aren't ending up hospitalized or in the ICU. The vast majority of ICU patients are unvaccinated [1]. [1] https://www.ncdhhs.gov/news/press-releases/2021/08/27/adult-...

It's tempting to look at vaccinated/unvaccinated as a perfect RCT and the unvaccinated are a control group. This clearly isn't the case. There are surely many confounders at play. Looking at this release's underlying report they mention: "The age-adjusted mortality rate among unvaccinated individuals was 5.00 cases per 100,000 unvaccinated population and the age-adjusted mortality rate among vaccinated individuals wa…

Generally when judging how some intervention does compared to not intervening, I believe you would divide the rates not subtract the rates.

Re: Spread of Delta variant driven by both immune escape and increased infectivity

#110

Post by TheBlight » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 10:54 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #109

TheBlight wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's tempting to look at vaccinated/unvaccinated as a perfect RCT and the unvaccinated are a control group. This clearly isn't the case. There are surely many confounders at play. Looking at this release's underlying report they mention: "The age-adjusted mortality rate among unvaccinated individuals was 5.00 cases per 100,000 unvaccinated population and the age-adjusted mortality rate among vaccinated individuals wa…

Generally when judging how some intervention does compared to not intervening, I believe you would divide the rates not subtract the rates.

I guess you're unable to respond to the substance of what I'm saying. Nominal risk reduction of already insanely low risk is not compelling especially when confounders are present and cannot be accounted for.