Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive immunity after Covid • Hacker News Board

Re: Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive immunity after Covid

#201

Post by choward » Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 10:49 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #91

philovivero wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. We should do that. We won't. Pro: everyone is fine, the hospitals aren't overwhelmed, the anti-vaxxers will be fine along with everyone else. Con: can't speak with disgust and disdain anymore to those who disagree with your medical opinions, or have concerns with how quickly you're forcing your experimental medications on the entire planet. Not going to happen. I've already seen the usual suspects talking about…

> everyone is fine Except the people who aren't. > the hospitals aren't overwhelmed Except the ones that are. > forcing your experimental medications on the entire planet No more experimental than any other vaccine; due to how quickly COVID spread, we were able to do the same level of testing on the vaccine as for any other medication. It's as safe as anything else you take.

To your first two points, you could say that before covid.

Do you have a time machine or something? You can't study long term effects just by having a bigger study.

Re: Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive immunity after Covid

#202

Post by chana_masala » Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 10:51 PM UTC

oezi wrote: post #197

chana_masala wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/weve-now-killed-close-to-...

There was an excellent refutation of using Adverse Events Reports for anything but safety signalling. The author of the linked substack could have uploaded the death reports himself. And he didn't even think about comparing his numbers to expected numbers. So, no: children don't die from the vaccine.

The author has a $1 million dollar offer to debate him and prove him wrong.

Re: Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive immunity after Covid

#203

Post by chana_masala » Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 10:51 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #181

chana_masala wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/weve-now-killed-close-to-...

That is a substantial misinterpretation of the data.

Who wants to win a million dollars? The author has a $1 million dollar offer to debate him and prove him wrong.

Re: Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive immunity after Covid

#204

Post by johnchristopher » Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 10:52 PM UTC

parkingrift wrote: post #94

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've been downvoted, but you're not wrong. Witness the number of people who have left California.

I’m not making a values argument either way. It just seems apparent that people are tired of restrictions, and those people seem more likely to vote. The result in Virginia was shocking and should have been a wake up call to Democrats.

I wonder if people would be OK with less restrictions, no vaccine mandates but perma n95 in public indoor and outdoor spaces ?

Because whether we like it or not the virus is still going to be around and kill people and saturate hospitals.

So, to me, the question seems to be:

  will living with the virus means "we don't treat covid patients anymore, if you get covid, tough luck, you are free to choose to wear a mask if you want, beyond that don't expect anything from public authorities"

Re: Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive immunity after Covid

#205

Post by lamontcg » Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 11:02 PM UTC

johnchristopher wrote: post #198

iamdamian wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why we wouldn't be able to go back to normal, and taking a stance that we never will strikes me as somewhat defeatist. I'm more of an optimist. Having a small percentage of the population that's at greater risk of serious implications from infection (respiratory or otherwise) is something we've learned to live with before (see: the flu) without masks, mandates, or dramatically rearranging the way we live…

> I'm not sure why we wouldn't be able to go back to normal, There are no path back to normal unless the virus disappears. We have vaccines that work for a limited time, we'll soon have pills@home. It will still not be `back to normal`. > and taking a stance that we never will strikes me as somewhat defeatist. We'll also never have FTL spaceships or teleportation star trek style. > I'm more of an optimist. Having a s…

> We have vaccines that work for a limited time

This is flat out FALSE.

There are two different possible endpoints for vaccine efficacy. One is efficacy against infection, one is efficacy against severe disease and death.

Efficacy against infection is very difficult because it is mediated by circulating neutralizing antibodies. It is just difficult to get sterilizing immunity against a muscosally invading respiratory virus in the first place. And then neutralizing antibodies wane over time.

Efficacy against severe disease is almost certainly going to be more durable because it is mediated by memory T-cell and B-cells having been already formed due to prior exposure to a related antigen.

Unfortunately the result of the phase 3 trails on the mRNA vaccines were way too good on VE against infection and it was sold as being 90% effective and as that waned people declared them to be ineffective. That should never have been the yardstick though. And in fact before those results were announced Fauci was trying to condition the population to expecting a 50% VE against infection number as being good enough. The 90% efficacy results just blew that all away though.

What gets lost is that they're still >90% effective against severe disease/death and nothing has changed there. And you can see it in the headlines with Omicron. It is almost still certainly as intrinsically virulent as D614G, if not actually more intrinsically virulent than Delta itself, but hospitalization rates and death rates are plummeting. That is the human humoral immune system working.

I'd argue everyone should probably get boosted because of the maturation in immune response which is measured against Omicron. Once we're done with that though I fully expect that people can stop getting any future vaccines and they'll just get a cold next time they catch SARS-CoV-2 until they wind up being over 65 or a cancer patient or something -- just like every other ILI-causing virus.

(Or you know keep getting boosters like you get flu shots -- I'm honestly not sure what I'll do about it, but its going to look a whole lot more like yearly flu shots than the world-record mass immunization campaign we've seen up until now).

Re: Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive immunity after Covid

#206

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 11:18 PM UTC

chana_masala wrote: post #203

jacquesm wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a substantial misinterpretation of the data.

Who wants to win a million dollars? The author has a $1 million dollar offer to debate him and prove him wrong.

Let's see the escrow first. Seriously though, VAERS is not meant to be used in this way.

Let me try to describe how I understand the mechanism, I'm sure there are people on HN that would be more than happy to correct me if anything is out of whack:

- VAERS allows for the reporting of suspected side effects

- this information is then made available again to ensure transparency

- the suspicion of a side effect is not the same as an actual side effect

- an example: you get vaccinated. The next day you die of a heart attack. An entry into VAERS is made. There is now a job lined up to figure out of you actually died of a heart attack due to your vaccination or if you were going to have that heart attack anyway, in so far as this is possible.

- if it is determined that you were at substantially elevated risk of a heart attack then it is likely that there will be no further action

- If a strong link is found between the vaccination and the heart attack the case is flagged for a much more thorough review. Possibly an autopsy will be ordered or any number of other investigations to get to the bottom of it, assuming that the case is out of the ordinary enough

- finally a determination is made: either there is a link, or there isn't, and if there is then the various risk factors are adjusted.

- If a similar link is established in other cases reported through VAERS or even through similar mechanisms in other countries then this can result in a warning, a change in administration (dose, frequency, certain groups within the population) or in an extreme case the vaccine can be taken off the market altogether if the risk to the population is deemed to be too high to continue the vaccinations. This translates into: the net effect of continued administration of this vaccine is worse than the alternatives (or possibly even worse than the disease)

Within that context the debate is pointless: VAERS is not intended to settle arguments, it is intended to gather possibly useful data.

Re: Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive immunity after Covid

#207

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 11:20 PM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #196

mikeyouse wrote: post #2

Finally some glimmers of hope in moving past Covid.. if Omicron continues on its current track of highly infectious but less serious —- and infection confers reactive immunity to a variety of strains, we could be closer to the endemic but manageable end game. Good vaccines + mild severity illness are basically the best case. What a stroke of luck that we are here vs a more infectious strain of Delta or some other nig…

Omicron's lower hospitalization rate is likely just due to vaccination and recovery from infection with Delta. Delta was transmissible enough to complete the vaccination program. Given that Omicron has higher viral loads, shorter serial interval and shorter incubation period than Delta, it is much more likely that Omicron is more intrinsically virulent as well and would be worse if you dropped it on a totally naive p…

Another factor (though I'm not sure how large that factor is) is that a chunk of the susceptible population isn't around any more.

Re: Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive immunity after Covid

#208

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 11:23 PM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #205

johnchristopher wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure why we wouldn't be able to go back to normal, There are no path back to normal unless the virus disappears. We have vaccines that work for a limited time, we'll soon have pills@home. It will still not be `back to normal`. > and taking a stance that we never will strikes me as somewhat defeatist. We'll also never have FTL spaceships or teleportation star trek style. > I'm more of an optimist. Having a s…

> We have vaccines that work for a limited time This is flat out FALSE. There are two different possible endpoints for vaccine efficacy. One is efficacy against infection, one is efficacy against severe disease and death. Efficacy against infection is very difficult because it is mediated by circulating neutralizing antibodies. It is just difficult to get sterilizing immunity against a muscosally invading respiratory…

The mutation rate and the number of infected people is what is driving this, as long as we have this many people infected at the same time mutations will be hitting us to the tune of a new one every four to five months or so.

The vaccines are quite effective against a variant that is no longer in play and hasn't been for quite a while.

Re: Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive immunity after Covid

#209

Post by stubish » Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 11:23 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #34

Amezarak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question ever since it became clear that this coronavirus was endemic has been what a "manageable end game" is: that is, what level of risk and mortality are we prepared to accept, given that deaths from Covid will never be zero. This is, in my opinion, the primary underlying disagreement. Some people think that no amount of deaths from Covid is acceptable. Some people believe that even the peak pandemic mortalit…

> what level of risk and mortality are we prepared to accept IMO, the rational answer to this question is 'the same risk and mortality that we have already accepted from influenza.' There is a lot of variability there, of course, but it is way above zero in any case.

I don't think this is quite right. The risk from COVID is in addition to the risk from influenza, and much of the mitigation affects both. Changes like common mask wearing may not have been considered 'worth it' for only lessening mortality and the economic costs of influenza, but the economic benefits alone of reduced productivity due to influenza and COVID combined may mean it is the obvious choice now for governments and businesses to push mask wearing everywhere they can. Similar for vaccination when your yearly flu jab becomes a yearly flu + COVID jab.

Re: Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive immunity after Covid

#210

Post by lamontcg » Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 11:26 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #207

lamontcg wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Omicron's lower hospitalization rate is likely just due to vaccination and recovery from infection with Delta. Delta was transmissible enough to complete the vaccination program. Given that Omicron has higher viral loads, shorter serial interval and shorter incubation period than Delta, it is much more likely that Omicron is more intrinsically virulent as well and would be worse if you dropped it on a totally naive p…

Another factor (though I'm not sure how large that factor is) is that a chunk of the susceptible population isn't around any more.

Literal survivorship bias.

There may also be a hard-to-infect/hard-to-seroconvert portion of the population left that could practically walk unmasked through a COVID ward in a hospital and not get infected. If they exist then the seronegative proportion of the population will start to be composed mostly of them over time through "purifying selection".

This is also why I'm somewhat skeptical about all the vaccine efficacy numbers that studies are throwing around. I don't think an adequate control group exists any more.