Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

#71

Post by nobody9999 »

criticaltinker wrote: post #66
nobody9999 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is pretty useful though. Studies have found it compares well with vaccines or better. My understanding was that there were many more studies of vaccine protection than immunity after infection. Some links to those studies of immunity after infection would be greatly appreciated.

A Systematic Review of the Protective Effect of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Repeat Infection https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.27.21262741v... Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... Prior COVID-19 protects against reinfection, even in the absence of detectable antibod…

Thank you!

Re: Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

#72

Post by colpabar »

collegeburner wrote: post #35
poorjohnmacafee wrote: post #10

> US CDC estimates that SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 100 million Americans That's probably why it doesn't count? Would clearly cut into the profit lines of big pharma. If you're extra skeptical, you could also argue Western governments are finding opportunities to accustom their citizens to more top down government intrusions into their lives, e.g. shifting towards a citizen management model that's used today by…

Yes, places like NYC are creating a system of getting entry to many places only if you present government authorization. Then they can start adding more conditions to that authorization. Maybe a red state later adds not being a felon or a blue state adds not being on some red flag list. After all, you can still eat, so it's okay. They represent systems for excluding certain classes of people from society.

I'm extremely interested to see whether voting locations will start requiring proof of vaccination.

Re: Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

#73

Post by peteradio »

Someone1234 wrote: post #65
peteradio wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe the science is settled no matter how much the already vaccinated wish to turn the page. What do you have to say that studies of vaccine efficacy and risk conducted by drug companies exclude those with prior immunity. How could the science be settled for a cohort purposefully excluded?

You're asking me about something that I didn't say. Here is what I did say: > Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue My post was about the logistical and cost problems associated with certifying people with natural immunity, and why that doesn't make sense unless you believe the vaccine is unsafe.

> Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue

I'm arguing against this particular point not the others.

I can't say whether the vaccine is safe for those who have already been infected the drug companies excluded those people from trials. Do you see what I'm saying here? When have we ever taken the position of prove its dangerous before you try to stop me from putting this in your body. Its always been "no you prove to me that it is safe".

Re: Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

#74

Post by Someone1234 »

mioasndo wrote: post #64
Someone1234 wrote: post #52

The answers aren't medical, they're pragmatic. - COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose). - We lack the quantity of Antibody Tests we'd need. - We'd need to set up additional systems and processes to accommodate the testing and proof (which, again, is a cost). The implicit assumption that often go along with these natural immunity proponents is that the vaccine is unsafe. Since i…

> COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose). That's not a valid reason at all. > We lack the quantity of Antibody Tests we'd need. We also lacked vaccine quantity, and many people still do. > We'd need to set up additional systems and processes to accommodate the testing and proof (which, again, is a cost). Meh, that's a very weak reason considering it's a small incremental cost to…

Your argument has holes.

- If the vaccine is safe.

- If the vaccine is cheaper (directly and logistically).

- If tracking the vaccine is easier.

Why add the natural immunity workflow? It doesn't make sense. You've just added a bunch of complexity for no stated payoff. Again, this entire argument hinges on the first question being answered "no" or "maybe not."

You yourself admit that that is your actual reason:

> Furthermore we literally have ZERO data on the long-term effects of the mrna vaccines. Plenty of drugs have been found to cause harm 5, 10, 15 years after being approved.

The "but efficacy" response is confusing at best. If the vaccine does literally nothing for natural immune people, it can still be the logical course of action at population scales for the other stated benefits (logistical, tracking, and cost).

Re: Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

#75

Post by [deleted] »

leifg wrote: post #46
gojomo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeking infection may cure their skepticism faster than any amount of scolding!

If catching COVID is only a risk to the people catching it I'd agree. However by catching COVID you are also a burden to the health care system and possibly take away a hospital bed for someone who actually needs it (already happening). I do have a problem with that.

[deleted]

Re: Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

#76

Post by danaris »

lithos wrote: post #37
rajin444 wrote: post #8

It's very concerning that the president is saying things like "your refusal has cost all of us" and "our patience is wearing this" when talking to people with natural immunity who have not received the vaccine. As president, he should be looking for every reason to not alienate his own citizens. It seems like he's doing the opposite. I'm not really sure why. My best guess is politics has become all about polarization…

The president would not be in the news if they acted reasonably and tried to work across party lines. There’s always going to be someone more extreme, louder, and obnoxious that will sell more ad views along with supporting whatever pet narrative the publication wants.

"Trying to work across party lines" went out the window when the Republicans decided that "prevent absolutely anything the Democrats want to do, no matter how objectively beneficial it would be or whether it was fully supported by Republicans in the past" was a viable and acceptable method of getting re-elected.

Re: Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

#77

Post by peteradio »

colpabar wrote: post #60
criticaltinker wrote: post #54

Why is this post flagged? And why is the vouch button unavailable?

The mods are surprisingly responsive on this site, so I say this without a hint of sarcasm - try emailing them about it. I recently had a thread unflagged within an hour.

I've mailed.

Re: Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

#78

Post by Someone1234 »

peteradio wrote: post #73
Someone1234 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're asking me about something that I didn't say. Here is what I did say: > Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue My post was about the logistical and cost problems associated with certifying people with natural immunity, and why that doesn't make sense unless you believe the vaccine is unsafe.

> Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue I'm arguing against this particular point not the others. I can't say whether the vaccine is safe for those who have already been infected the drug companies excluded those people from trials. Do you see what I'm saying here? When have we ever taken the position of prove its dangerous before you try to stop me from putting this in your body. Its always been "no yo…

> I can't say whether the vaccine is safe for those who have already been infected the drug companies excluded those people from trials. Do you see what I'm saying here?

Except we now have data from the population itself, including people previously infected with COVID-19. We therefore do know it is safe. I think what you're saying is that you want to ignore inconvenient data and use outdated arguments.

> Its always been "no you prove to me that it is safe".

You could have made that argument at one point, but you cannot now. We have enough population level data to call it safe beyond the studies that also showed that it was safe. It is baseless.

Re: Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

#79

Post by amalcon »

poorjohnmacafee wrote: post #10

> US CDC estimates that SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 100 million Americans That's probably why it doesn't count? Would clearly cut into the profit lines of big pharma. If you're extra skeptical, you could also argue Western governments are finding opportunities to accustom their citizens to more top down government intrusions into their lives, e.g. shifting towards a citizen management model that's used today by…

Do we actually believe that "big pharma" (in the form of 3 companies that make US approved vaccines) have greater influence than all of the collective industries that would benefit from a looser mandate (so long as the public trusted it)? Pharma is more influential than the entire service sector, plus most manufacturing, and anything else that functionally requires people to be in the same room?

If you believe they are, then I accept that we have different starting points but your reasoning is compelling under your starting point. If you believe they're not, then I think it makes sense to look for another explanation.

Re: Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

#80

Post by tzs »

howlong wrote: post #49
leifg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If catching COVID is only a risk to the people catching it I'd agree. However by catching COVID you are also a burden to the health care system and possibly take away a hospital bed for someone who actually needs it (already happening). I do have a problem with that.

A great deal of burden on the health care system -- perhaps even more than completely eliminating COVID -- could be alleviated by people dedicating themselves to better diet and exercise. Why not mandate that?

Poor diet and exercise produce a fairly steady burden on the health care system. We need to provide more health care than we would if people ate better and exercised more, but as diet and exercise deteriorated over the decades there was plenty of time to slowly expand the health care system to meet the increased need.

COVID places a much more dynamic burden on the health care system.

It's similar to the way there are many people could manage to afford a $10/month expense for the next 10 years ($1200 total) but would have a very hard time dealing with am extra one-time $200 expense.

Post reply on HN