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

Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive immunity after Covid

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 285 posts

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

#261

Post by chana_masala »

heurisko wrote: post #28
chana_masala wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with the other sibling reply that asking for citation for natural immunity vs vaccine protection is a bit like asking for a citation for claiming that frozen water floats. Sure, you could prove it but it's a well accepted understanding in epidemiology and virology. It's only lately been.... Politicized.

I was reading this article recently about natural vs vaccine immunity (mostly in adults I think). Didn't seem to reach any strong conclusions either way. > “It appears from the literature that natural infection provides immunity, but that immunity is seemingly not as strong and may not be as long lasting as that provided by the vaccine... > But not everyone agrees with this interpretation. “The data we have right now…

Look into Measles vs MMR or pertussis and the pertussis vaccine

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

#262

Post by Consultant32452 »

phonypc wrote: post #236
Consultant32452 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other dataset are you using to inform yourself about vaccine related harm in the public?

Your question would seem to imply you've used VAERS to inform yourself, but I would contend you've relied on someone else's interpretation of it.

Is it the best dataset or do you have a better one?

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

#263

Post by phonypc »

bhk wrote: post #247
phonypc wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different data sets. The sentence preceding your quote from the FDA estimates rates of 71.5 and 42.6 per million using VAERS, vs. the garbage paper's 164 and 92 per million. i.e. less than half the incidence. Regarding that other data set, see page 24 of this report: https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download Importantly, in relies on unconfirmed cases of myo/pericarditis, and concludes vaccine benefits outweigh risks…

The Hoeg findings are off by 2X from the VAERS-based numbers cited by the FDA, but Hoeg examines "probable" vs. "medical chart-confirmed" cases. A factor of 2 is small in the scheme of things considering (a) the apple-to-oranges nature of the comparison, (b) the confidence intervals, and (c) the unacknowledged uncertainties that stem from our lack of understanding of reporting rates. This new blog article you cite po…

It's not apples-to-oranges, it's apples-to-less-carefully-selected-apples. The Hoeg paper mentions a broader case-finding method, but "We otherwise maintained the specificity of our analysis by requiring the same objective findings of cardiac injury used by the CDC to identify probable cases (Supplement 1) and excluded cases without sufficient objective evidence of cardiac-specific injury." The 7 cases in the blog are highlighted to demonstrate that this is clearly not true; they have not excluded cases without sufficient evidence of cardiac-specific injury in line with the CDC. So no, that criticism is not unfounded.

You've dismissed as apples-to-oranges the 2x difference in numbers between the two publications using VAERS data, then linked a third paper using different data (which isn't available in full; who knows what their inclusion criteria were) that shows another 2x discrepancy as evidence that the findings are in general concurrence? Would you have me believe that's not actually an apples-to-oranges comparison? Why not this paper[1] out of Canada the gives a rate of 97/million for the group most closely matching your 370/million number? Or this one[2] out of Israel with 137/million.

[1]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v... [2]https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730

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

#264

Post by ceejayoz »

kyruzic wrote: post #173
ceejayoz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My kids' mental health would be pretty heavily impacted by the death of their grandparents. A pretty large number of kids are raised by "the old", too. https://www.prb.org/resources/more-u-s-children-raised-by-gr...

Learning to over come loss is something people have always had to deal with. Forced isolation is not.

Any culture with nasty winters has dealt with months worth of "forced isolation" for millennia. No FaceTime calls, either.

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

#265

Post by ceejayoz »

throwaway55421 wrote: post #251
ceejayoz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My kids' mental health would be pretty heavily impacted by the death of their grandparents. A pretty large number of kids are raised by "the old", too. https://www.prb.org/resources/more-u-s-children-raised-by-gr...

You are conflating the emotion of grief with mental disorders. It's pretty common nowadays, I find it quite strange. My grandfather died when I was younger and it sucked. I still miss him. But I could go to his funeral and hang out with my friends in the bar, go on holiday, study hard at University, etc, employ all of the normal time tested coping mechanisms. Coronavirus restrictions deliberately took and removed alm…

> Coronavirus restrictions deliberately took and removed almost everything it means to be human from people.

Can you clarify which restriction regime you're referring to?

I've got relatives in Australia, and I live in New York state; both are on the heavier restrictions side, and the idea of describing our lives as having "removed almost everything it means to be human" is baffling to me.

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

#266

Post by Thiez »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #172
pilsetnieks wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now inverse that statement and see where it takes you, and what it tells about you as a human being.

Downvoters: you want your elders (and not just them) to die and countless others to suffer long-term consequences of a disease not yet fully understood just to earn some money right now and keep the endless rat race going as it is; you make me sick.

Don't we accept that our children will die and countless others will suffer long-term consequences every time we take a car instead of walking? As long as the suffering is sufficiently vague and indirect (such as with air pollution and global warming) people choose to sacrifice themselves and others all the time. Covid is new, but this dilemma is old as time.

Whether you like it or not, participating in the endless rat race is how some people are able to (sometimes barely) afford to feed their children, or pay for medical treatment. Do poor people make you sick? How about those who would choose quality of life over a little life expectancy?

Some elders would rather see and hug their (grand-)children more often than live another two years in social isolation. Do you find such elders disgusting as well?

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

#267

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

TeeMassive wrote: post #61

Serious question: should we let this more infectious but less dangerous run its course to achieve natural immunity? What are the arguments for and against this strategy? I know that if it is 5 times less likely to put people in hospitals but 10 times more transmissible then there will be 2 times more people in hospitals, but are there more arguments?

> I know that if it is 5 times less likely to put people in hospitals but 10 times more transmissible then there will be 2 times more people in hospitals, but are there more arguments?

If it is more transmissible, people will be put into hospitals faster, and its not linear. Something that has an R of 1.1 will very slowly burn through part of the population then eventually die out as immunity reduces R just below 1.

Something that has R=11 will infect almost everyone, and very quickly, even if we halve transmission with drastic measures limiting contact etc.

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

#268

Post by mechanical_bear »

wiseowise wrote: post #257
objektif wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure anyone can recover from financial troubles. It is possible.. The other one? Not so much...

Yep! Anyone can pull themselves by their bootstraps.

Yes.

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

#269

Post by dang »

DrHilarius wrote: post #124
guimplen wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the real problem is that in most countries the healthcare system was "optimized" to such extent that even seasonal flu was almost clogging it every year. And now SURPRISE, any disease, even a tad bit more deadly and contagious than the seasonal flu would make it collapse. TOTALLY UNEXPECTED.

As always, the standard gimmick of neoliberalism is to pin the blame for the collateral damage of its policies on the relatively powerless people who refuse its self-serving "solutions."

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. It also appears to be a single-purpose account, which goes against the intended spirit the site (curiosity), and therefore is not allowed here.

Would you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with? If you don't want to be banned on HN, you can email us at hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll use the site as intended in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#270

Post by throwaway0a5e »

ceejayoz wrote: post #264
kyruzic wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Learning to over come loss is something people have always had to deal with. Forced isolation is not.

Any culture with nasty winters has dealt with months worth of "forced isolation" for millennia. No FaceTime calls, either.

They also dealt with death from infection, commonplace wife beating, lack of running water, all sorts of other things that people these days don't just bend over and take without protest.

You can't just plop people down in a situation that's analogous to something in the past and say "just deal, your ancestors did". Well you can but they'll probable just deal with you.

Post reply on HN