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

Delta does not appear to make children sicker

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 100 posts

Re: Delta does not appear to make children sicker

#71

Post by kybernetyk »

glogla wrote: post #45
kybernetyk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Please elaborate why you consider this bullshit. I mean making personal decisions based on personal risk is seldom considered "bullshit". Why is it bullshit in this case? Because the TV says so?

Because if you get needlessly infected, you are almost sure to infect others. You choices impact other people. Framing it as a personal choice is selfish and disingenuous. It is no more personal choice than dumping toxic waste into a river or firing a gun in random direction in public. There are people who legitimately can't get vaccinated for medical reasons - but those are rarely the ones using the personal choice…

But vaccinated still spread the virus. So it’s just personal risk to not get vaccinated.

Re: Delta does not appear to make children sicker

#72

Post by kybernetyk »

op00to wrote: post #37
kybernetyk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Please elaborate why you consider this bullshit. I mean making personal decisions based on personal risk is seldom considered "bullshit". Why is it bullshit in this case? Because the TV says so?

It’s bullshit because the risk for heart complications is higher if you get COVID than if you get the shot. This is simple math.

But those simple math calculations don’t factor in the chance of getting corona in the first place. 2 years in the pandemic and I only know 3 people who got corona.

People act as if it was 100% certain one would get corona.

Re: Delta does not appear to make children sicker

#73

Post by kybernetyk »

falcolas wrote: post #58
kybernetyk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you can get a heart defect from the shots. Or blood clots. So there's no categorical "take the shot" or "dont take the shot". It's your personal risk profile that should be the deciding factor. Not some troll on the internet/tv telling you what to do.

Heart issues occur at a rate of 1 in 49 million. AKA, you’re about 50x more likely to be hit by lightning at 1 in 1 million odds. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027e2.htm To turn this probability into dice rolls, roll 10d6, and look to get all 1’s.

It’s still not 0. So it’s an unnecessary risk.

Re: Delta does not appear to make children sicker

#74

Post by afavour »

farmerstan wrote: post #70
tootie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unbelievable that this far into the pandemic people are still making this argument. It has been known from near the beginning that the direct risk to kids is relatively small. The risk is secondary exposure. Kids in school spread diseases like kudzu and can expose hundreds of adults very quickly. Protecting kids will prevent spread. Not to mention kids who are vaccinated can still possibly be exposed to covid an…

Pfizer vaccine doesn’t prevent infection from delta. Vaccines prevent hospitalization. This is well documented. My friend, a doctor, was just infected by delta this week and she’s vaccinated. Getting kids vaccinated wont prevent other vaccinated kids from being infected. The kids vaccine is 1/3 of the dose of the adult vaccine. And the adult vaccine is known to drop down to 20% efficacy after 4 months. Kids already h…

> Getting kids vaccinated wont prevent other vaccinated kids from being infected.

It will. Vaccinated people who get COVID have a lower viral load and less severe symptoms (in particular, coughing, sneezing etc) that would help spread the disease. No, it isn’t 100% but it will help, and it’ll also help stop kids from spreading COVID to more vulnerable people like their grandparents.

Re: Delta does not appear to make children sicker

#75

Post by tzs »

wizard-beta wrote: post #65
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Scandinavian countries all have vaccine cards, however, and permit people to discriminate based on whether one has those. The U.S. won’t jail you if you refuse the vaccine. But you have to stay home. This is functionally identical to the Scandinavian solution, minus public buildings and minus a federal vaccine certificate.

[flagged]

When comparing Denmark to the US you should really be comparing the Denmark of a few months ago to the present US, because Denmark is way ahead of the US on vaccinations and on taking non-vaccine anti-COVID measures.

Due to Denmark's high vaccination rate and widespread following of anti-COVID measures their delta surge in cases was in the bottom half for Europe (and peaked about 60% below the US delta surge), and their delta death surge was almost undetectable when graphed on the same scale as the rest of Europe (their peak was around 8% of the US peak).

Denmark seems to have made it to the stage where COVID is now just another circulating cold virus (joining the previous four coronaviruses that have become endemic in humans and are responsible for about 20% of colds). About a month ago they ended all COVID restrictions. That's why no one has cared about your vaccination status recently.

Re: Delta does not appear to make children sicker

#76

Post by adolph »

bsaul wrote: post #27

Looking at this comment section, i wonder how we have gotten to this point : basically any comment gets downvoted by the other side. This whole crisis has become so political, it's completely absurd. We should be able to quietly talk about what's proven and what's not, what's a safe precaution, what's overkill, etc. without getting too passionate about it.. On a sidenote, I don't know if twitter is a good representat…

> crisis has become so political

On the plus side, you know you can relax about the crisis because it’s political and no longer a crisis. We can gather around threads like these and complain (humans are hardwired to focus on the negative) because enoughs unknown and unsettled that’s everybody has a similar level of expertise. There’s a hint of a conspiracy and town-gown divides. It’s perfect for keeping those engagement stats up!

Re: Delta does not appear to make children sicker

#77

Post by lostmsu »

kybernetyk wrote: post #72
op00to wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s bullshit because the risk for heart complications is higher if you get COVID than if you get the shot. This is simple math.

But those simple math calculations don’t factor in the chance of getting corona in the first place. 2 years in the pandemic and I only know 3 people who got corona. People act as if it was 100% certain one would get corona.

So let's assume you know 10000 people. COVID risk of death is 1 in 100. The chance you'll be next and die is 1 per 1M. As mentioned above the chance of blood clots from the vaccines is about 1 per 40M.

Re: Delta does not appear to make children sicker

#78

Post by falcolas »

kybernetyk wrote: post #73
falcolas wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heart issues occur at a rate of 1 in 49 million. AKA, you’re about 50x more likely to be hit by lightning at 1 in 1 million odds. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027e2.htm To turn this probability into dice rolls, roll 10d6, and look to get all 1’s.

It’s still not 0. So it’s an unnecessary risk.

So is walking out of your house. Driving a car. Taking public transportation.

So is living.

Re: Delta does not appear to make children sicker

#79

Post by falcolas »

kbelder wrote: post #69
falcolas wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you cherry picked the one study that fits your bias, and ignored the dozen others which do not. Here’s a direct counter from one of the other studies: > The CDC researchers found that people previously infected but unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who were previously infected and fully vaccinated. And here’s the conclusion of the article: Overall, the variable immune…

"> The CDC researchers found that people previously infected but unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who were previously infected and fully vaccinated." That's not comparing vaccine vs natural immunity. That's comparing vaccine + natural immunity to natural immunity alone. Not what the question is, even though the framing of the study implies otherwards.

You're right, which is a direct counter to the parent comment of "there's no benefit to getting the vaccine if you've had covid".

Re: Delta does not appear to make children sicker

#80

Post by LurkingPenguin »

glogla wrote: post #24
rafale wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the immune response is comparable to that of a fully vaccinated person, we should be issuing "immunization cards" to people who have recovered. The goal is to control the disease, not the people.

That makes no sense logistically - the test to accurately measure that the people indeed have the antibodies in sufficient strength is more expensive than the vaccine - and now you have to distribute both instead of just one. It's not worth it.

Comments like these oversimplify the immune system. Your real-world protection from illness isn't based solely on the amount of neutralizing antibodies that are circulating in your veins as a result of either infection or vaccination.

It would not be efficient for the immune system to keep antibodies circulating in large numbers for every pathogen you've ever been exposed to. Instead, the immune system generates longer-lasting memory T and B cells, which allow it to recognize pathogens it has been exposed to in the past and more quickly produce antibodies to fight them if necessary.

Most individuals who have been vaccinated or recovered from infection will have protection against SARS-CoV-2 even after the antibodies produced immediately following vaccination or infection have waned and become undetectable.

The evidence to date suggests that the long-lasting memory T and B cell responses are stronger and broader in individuals who have recovered from natural infection, while those who have been vaccinated have higher levels of neutralizing antibodies that wane quickly.

Ultimately, whether you're talking about vaccination or natural infection, the problem with your statement "the test to accurately measure that the people indeed have the antibodies in sufficient strength" is that there is no such test because there is no validated model to correlate titers of neutralizing antibodies to protection against infection and illness.

Post reply on HN