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

631–640 of 1001 posts

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

#631

Post by landemva »

throwaway287391 wrote: post #186
darthvoldemort wrote: post #21

A recent study from Israel said that natural immunity is an order of magnitude better than vaccine-induced immunity against delta variant. I don't know who to believe, but if that's the case, then the narrative of "well they should get vaccinated anyway" is really freaking suspicious. We need deeper research on this, and the fact that they haven't researched this is truly scary.

I got vaxxed as soon as I reasonably could and I never want to get COVID, but if that's true it really does seem insulting to require vaccination for people who can prove they already had COVID. It's like they did get vaccinated but picked a much more difficult/risky and much more effective way to do so -- if that were their intention (and they avoided spreading it once they got it), one could say it was a heroic cho…

I was sick earlier this year. A few weeks later I paid a pharmacy $20 or $25 to test my blood for antibodies. Strongly positive. Dr. agreed and wrote a letter with my facts.

I thought the process was straightforward, convenient, and cheap.

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

#632

Post by gscho »

nostrademons wrote: post #552
kristjansson wrote: post #525

Because it's a terrible policy prescription. If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half? More? Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way. Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces…

So? If lots of people independently choose to take the risk and they're not harming anyone else, why shouldn't they be allowed to? The impact on the hospital system could be blunted simply by saying "This wing is for COVID patients, when it fills up further COVID patients will be turned away" and leaving the other wings for normal hospital patients. They have to do this for quarantine reasons anyway. Now that COVID i…

It’s needs to be a step further though. This wing is for COVID patients who couldn’t be vaccinated for legitimate health risks or for the vaccinated who still get COVID. Anyone who willingly skips the vaccination should not be eligible for COVID ER beds.

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

#633

Post by tdfx »

nostrademons wrote: post #552
kristjansson wrote: post #525

Because it's a terrible policy prescription. If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half? More? Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way. Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces…

So? If lots of people independently choose to take the risk and they're not harming anyone else, why shouldn't they be allowed to? The impact on the hospital system could be blunted simply by saying "This wing is for COVID patients, when it fills up further COVID patients will be turned away" and leaving the other wings for normal hospital patients. They have to do this for quarantine reasons anyway. Now that COVID i…

Unrelated, but one thing I've been curious about for a while is: what useful treatments are actually available when you're hospitalized for COVID-19? Is there anything besides intravenous fluids/vitamins and oxygen that is regularly provided? From what I've read, it seems that most people that reach the critical level of needing a ventilator don't recover anyway. Does being hospitalized improve outcomes by a substantial margin? Could people just use oxygen at home?

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

#634

Post by mleonhard »

nostrademons wrote: post #544
soperj wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they did, and they are now. Society didn't crumble because of extreme monetary policy measures.

Arguably society is in the process of crumbling now. Jan 6th was part of that, as were the BLM protests, the anti-vax protests, the contentious school-board meetings, the constant tug-of-war between Federal/state/local/individual authorities, high inflation, supply shortages, people refusing to go back to work, etc.

The tug-of-war between different levels of government is healthy. We should be worried when people stop tugging because they are afraid.

The Federal Reserve System and the US Government can bring inflation down to acceptable levels. They will do it after the pandemic. Supply shortages are to be expected given the ongoing disruption to workforces around the world.

Some protests produce important progress for society. I think that most of the BLM protests did that.

USA is handling the pandemic quite well. Given the country's diversity and massive economic inequality, things worked out better than I expected. Most at-risk folks got vaccinated before the Delta variant hit.

The only troubling development is that a large portion of the U.S. population (including some of my family members) showed that they believe that democracy is not important for our country. Specifically, they continue to support politicians who acted against U.S. democracy. I think that most of these people are simply gullible. Many of them are recently-retired and increased their consumption of media. The media companies deftly manipulate them by triggering fear and turning it to anger. Fortunately, these folks still believe that courts are important and they trust the military. They vote, but don't fight. Things will calm down over the next 10 years as the population-age curve flattens.

Therefore, society is not crumbling. Laws can and will be changed. Society will progress. USA and our entire species have a bright future.

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

#635

Post by grioghar »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #626
micromacrofoot wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If hospital beds become filled to >50% capacity because of the obese then maybe we can start making this comparison. Because of unvaccinated people many of us face significantly worse hospital care right now.

Many of the COVID severe cases are the obese

I challenge you to provide proof of this statement outside a politically slanted source.

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

#636

Post by elmalto »

The way I understand the science is that we can say with some certainty that…

- we know vaccines work and they’re safe

- we know natural immunity works

- we have a good estimate on how well/long the vaccines work over time (probably 9-12 months with potential boosters) given a plethora of studies

- we don’t know how long natural immunity lasts, but we can (safely) assume it’s going to be 6+ months? Maybe 12, maybe 18, who knows. Does it matter?

- everyone wants to be safe, but the goal cannot be 100% safety/certainty, but severely reducing the spread and impact of covid without giving up our freedom, liberties as well as our economy

Rather than calling it a vaccine passport, call it something else that is less controversial, such as a covid protection status

- if you have been vaccinated/ bolstered using authorized vaccines in the last x months, you’re protected

- if you have an authorized lab based positive results in the last y months, you’re protected

- if you have neither, but can show antibodies from an authorized lab, you’re protected for z months

Let’s set best guesstimates on x, y and z and then call it a day? E.g. Make it 12 months for x and y, 3 or 6 months for z.

I feel like 90% of people could work within this framework. The other 10% is probably too far gone…

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

#637

Post by colpabar »

refulgentis wrote: post #541
ixacto wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To reply as the devils advocate to this comment, what is the tolerance to social costs that society is willing to bear? Also why would one segment of society have to do something that it doesn't want e.g. not bear risk if they want to? Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? Overweight and obesity are going to cost much more in increased healthcare costs than COVID will in the coming decades (pls prove m…

The line seems to be drawn at socializing the risks of full hospital ICUs in a region Edit: why the downvote to near-dead? I thought that's what the author emphasized :\

I downvoted you because you complained about being downvoted :)

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

#638

Post by opnitro »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #622
kristjansson wrote: post #525

Because it's a terrible policy prescription. If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half? More? Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way. Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces…

> Because it's a terrible policy prescription. If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half? More? What we know : We know that vaccines are of great value for high risk populations. We know that vaccines are contraindicated for a number of patients and have some pretty severe side effects for those with allergies. We know that the vaccines…

You provide 3 sources, yet don't cite a source for the claim that ~10k have died from the vaccine. Could we have a citation for that one?

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

#639

Post by collegeburner »

MSM wrote: post #620
ixacto wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To reply as the devils advocate to this comment, what is the tolerance to social costs that society is willing to bear? Also why would one segment of society have to do something that it doesn't want e.g. not bear risk if they want to? Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? Overweight and obesity are going to cost much more in increased healthcare costs than COVID will in the coming decades (pls prove m…

>Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? >What about drinking and smoking? There's a lot of investment in trying to fix these problems already, or at least offset the costs. For example, there are "sin taxes" for things like cigarettes and alcohol, which means smokers and drinkers are paying disproportionately more taxes than those that don't. You could argue that overweight folks are also paying disprop…

Except the food you eat to get fat is often much cheaper than the food to stay healthy. Produce is expensive per calorie, lean meat is expensive per calorie, cooking takes time and effort, and a gym membership is expensive. This is one of the reasons why obesity is so prevalent, it's much easier than staying healthy. It's not just 20% more of what healthy people eat.

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

#640

Post by coffeecat »

wrycoder wrote: post #586
refulgentis wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line seems to be drawn at socializing the risks of full hospital ICUs in a region Edit: why the downvote to near-dead? I thought that's what the author emphasized :\

ICUs normally run at 80%. This is gaslighting.

I hear the term "gaslighting" used a lot nowadays. Its textbook definition is a specific form of interpersonal manipulation that occurred in a movie.

But I've never been able to connect the dots between the term's textbook definition, and the way that people actually use it. The effective definition seems to be: "expressing a different perspective."

Post reply on HN