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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by zmmmmm »

throwawayfear wrote: post #314
jowday wrote: post #189

The answer is pretty simple - the moment authorities start saying "well, natural immunity is probably just as good as vaccination, we'll accept that as equal to vaccination for passport purposes", a huge segment of the population who's on the fence about getting the vaccine might just opt to wait until they're infected naturally, or, even worse, get infected purposefully (EG, chicken pox parties). Which leads to more…

Past covid gives antibodies that are superior to two shots of Pfizer. https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... So yes, it IS just as good as the vaccination and should be treated as such. Vaccinating people for the sake of vaccinating them is illogical here. And don't even get me started on vaccine passports, which are completely unnecessary. If a place of employment absolutely needs proof of v…

Even while supporting the notion that the source is valid and the statement is generally true, it is still NOT the same as the mountain of clinical evidence generated to show efficacy of the vaccines. So no, you can't make that claim unless you actually go through the same kind of proof to show efficacy the way FDA would require for the vaccines.

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

#852

Post by ggggtez »

ixacto wrote: post #536
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…

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…

Your drinking is regulated. When you step into a car drunk, you are putting others at risk and it stops being your problem and starts being society's problem.

The same is true here. You are stepping into society on a state of health that presents risks to everyone around you.

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

#853

Post by Thorrez »

throwawayfear wrote: post #753
jonnycomputer wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hesitate to take one study as definitive either way. Also, I've seen data pointing to important variables of possible interest moderating the potential effectiveness, including age, and severity of first infection.

Please hestitate after providing your sources.

This seems to indicate that a Pfizer vaccination is better than having Covid previously:

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-08-19-vaccines-still-effectiv...

Pfizer reduced rates by 82% whereas a Covid infection reduced rates by 73%.

>Fourteen days after a second dose of Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech, rates had dropped by 67% and 82% respectively. In comparison, people who had not been vaccinated but had had COVID-19 before had rates which were 73% lower than unvaccinated individuals

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

#855

Post by RandallBrown »

rpmisms wrote: post #839
mike00632 wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like you're against the vaccine. What's wrong with just getting the vaccine (even if you had COVID)?

I will not be compelled into treatment by the Government. Simple as that. I control my body, and I don't give a damn whose patience is wearing thin.

If the only reason you aren't getting the vaccine is because the government wants you to it doesn't sound like you're actually exhibiting any control over your body. You're just putting a NOT gate in front of the government's choice.

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

#856

Post by yyyk »

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?

You're making a calculation not regarding health, but regarding public reaction. The problem is that the public health community sucks as far as making these calculations go; I don't think I need to list all the missteps here. IMHO, they know a lot about epidemiology, nothing about the public. So it's best to just make the right policy and not to try 4D chess with the public, that tends to backfire.

Just about anyone who has remained unvaccinated so far is already taking the risk you pointed out*. No point in spending resources chasing recovering patients we don't really have to vaccinate right now.

Now I don't agree with using antibody test results (these kits aren't standardized, so the relation between immunity and the results isn't clear), but an actual record of recovery should do. As the article notes, that's what many other countries in the world do.

* Excluding the very few people who actually have a good reason to not vaccinate due to certain extremely rare immune system ailments.

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

#857

Post by dkdk8283 »

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…

This is absurd. Vaccine efficacy is measured against natural antibodies resulting from a recovery.

I cannot get the vaccine and I’m effectively a second class citizen. I was sick and recovered - my immune system is working as designed.

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

#858

Post by Niksko »

ryandrake wrote: post #493
isolli wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While not wrong in itself, your comment epitomizes everything that has been wrong with our public health response. Trying to manipulate populations into a desired behavior by lying to them is, as you point out, counterproductive in the long run.

OP's statement recognizes that incentives matter. If you remove the incentive to do the right thing, people will simply not do the right thing--If 2020 has taught us anything it has to be that! You can't just rely on everyone being a rational actor and let Nash Equilibrium keep society functioning. It becomes a gigantic Prisoners Dilemma with everyone choosing DEFECT. You complain that "not recognizing natural immuni…

So many people are criticizing you for your comment about 'lying'. Realistically, the statements presented are so under-specified that is pretty difficult to determine what 'the lie' is. Which is the entire point.

Let's take OP's statement: "natural immunity is probably just as good as vaccination, we'll accept that as equal for passport purposes". Presumably, the negation of that statement i.e. "natural immunity is probably not just as good as vaccination, we won't accept that as equal to vaccination for passport purposes" would be considered 'lying'. This statement is ridiculously under specified, even if you take out the "probably".

Define natural immunity? Perhaps someone has to take a blood test to show they have the right anti-bodies. Define "just as good". Define "equal to vaccination for passport purposes". Equal how? Why not for other purposes?

All of these questions and lack of clarity are exactly what the parent is talking about. No truth is absolute. There are statements that are less true, but are more effective as communication methods. Politics should prove that to you, and the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it less true.

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

#859

Post by mshroyer »

rpmisms wrote: post #839
mike00632 wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like you're against the vaccine. What's wrong with just getting the vaccine (even if you had COVID)?

I will not be compelled into treatment by the Government. Simple as that. I control my body, and I don't give a damn whose patience is wearing thin.

I honestly think this is a reasonable stance because, while I'm not an expert—to my current understanding, the immunity you acquired from having the virus is probably comparable to the immunity I got from my Pfizer shots, if not better in some respects.

As an American, I wish we could all just have an honest conversation about this. Yes, the mRNA vaccines are new technology and I don't begrudge anyone who feels hesitant about them; but I also think there's strong evidence for their safety, and I waited hours in line to get my shot as soon as it was available.

But this business of public health officials trying to shape people's behavior instead of giving them plain facts... I don't think we collectively appreciate how much damage this has done. It necessarily breeds mistrust. It works against the actual goal of ending this pandemic.

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

#860

Post by CaptainZapp »

bitcurious wrote: post #225
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). So a marginal cost of $24. Folks with natural immunity will have a stronger reaction to the vaccine, but let’s be conservative. Let’s say 12 hours of symptoms - headache, fatigue, light fever. Very standard with a shot. At around the minimum wage of $8/hour that’s a cost of $96. How much do you value your time? Full disclosure: happily v…

> Let’s say 12 hours of symptoms - headache, fatigue, light fever. Very standard with a shot. At around the minimum wage of $8/hour that’s a cost of $96. How much do you value your time?

Other rich countries solve that problem by letting you take time off if you're sick.

Even if working minimum wage.

Post reply on HN