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

The Plague of the Poor

tabletmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 181 posts

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#111

Post by bayesian_horse »

protomyth wrote: post #18
Aeolun wrote: post #11

I’m willing to read these articles, and even sort of willing to consider other viewpoints, but this is mostly garbage. What stands out is the authors’ favor of natural immunity being better than vaccination. It may well be, but it has this small caveat that you need to have had the virus to become naturally immune. E.g. you need to take that 1-2% of not surviving entirely, and if too many people take that chance at t…

No one is advocating for people to get infected, but many front line workers have already had COVID while they were doing their hero work. Since studies are now showing they have better immunity than those who have received a vaccination, it is foolish to have them vaccinate. If you've had Measles, you aren't required to get a vaccination, so there is a well established precedent. The politicalization of the vaccine…

It's simply not possible to track "natural immunity" in a suitable way to protect the public.

Also, while "natural immunity" may be better in some cases, it is much more unpredictable. We can't even tell for how long that natural immunity is good enough at all.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#112

Post by geysersam »

protomyth wrote: post #80
sokoloff wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there’s a risk with the blood draw as well. It’s also small.

That's not even in the same realm.

They are not the same. But the "risk" from the vaccines does seem negligible compared to almost anything else.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#113

Post by bayesian_horse »

protomyth wrote: post #84
ineptech wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The politicalization of the vaccine is foolish and unscientific. I think you're confusing cause and effect here. The politicization of the vaccine is the reason the government is now pushing vaccine mandates and such, not a reaction to it. If Fox News had spent the last year telling its viewers that seat belts make you sterile, the government would be raising fines and ramping up enforcement and generally adopting…

Both sides are to blame. I stand by my statement. Any politics directed at vaccines is foolish and unscientific. People should acknowledge that mistakes were made by the government and officials with their foolish statements. CNN and Fox are equal partners in the hysteria. People need to remember the goal is to eliminate the threat, not get everyone vaccinated. These are two different things. Ignoring post-COVID immu…

The "both sides" arguments are total BS here. Fox News clearly entertains lies and factually untrue statements, while actively discouraging the vaccine.

You may not like that CNN endorses vaccination, but you'd be hard pressed to catch them in even a simple incorrect statement, much less an intentional lie, let alone at the same order of magnitude. It is hard not to endorse vaccination if you understand the science.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#114

Post by bayesian_horse »

faster wrote: post #63
p49k wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antibody tests exist. I’m not in any way antivax, but it makes no sense why people who already had COVID should be required to receive a vaccine instead of just proving they have antibodies. This kind of illogical policy gives fuel to antivaxers.

What's the difference in cost to the organization giving the shots or the antibody tests? My expectation is that they're about the same. If that's true, it's easier and more certain to just require vaccination. Also, this article provides some arguments based more on biology. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...

You can test for "antibodies". But the question of "is this patient immune from Covid-19" is a lot harder to answer and especially to standardize.

There is such a thing as testing for neutralizing antibodies by testing the antibodies against the virus directly. But in general, all of the relevant tests seem to be more expensive and harder to standardize.

Every human body creates its own set of antibodies against the virus (or the vaccine). Starting from different strains of the virus, the potential for uncertainty is too great.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#116

Post by bayesian_horse »

ajkdhcb2 wrote: post #99
p49k wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antibody tests exist. I’m not in any way antivax, but it makes no sense why people who already had COVID should be required to receive a vaccine instead of just proving they have antibodies. This kind of illogical policy gives fuel to antivaxers.

How do you define antivax? Pretty sure you would be defined as an antivaxxer by most people as a result of your opinion that some people don't need to get vaccines

It's not about whether the individual "needs" the vaccines, but rather about rules a society can live by.

And those who argue the most don't really argue about "they don't need the vaccine", but rather assume the vaccine is much bigger risk or damage than is at all reasonable. And that, yes, puts you very close to the "anti-vaxx" bubble.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#117

Post by bayesian_horse »

protomyth wrote: post #42
paulcole wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it just easier (and with virtually no risk) to require people to vaccinate rather than debate over who did/did not actually have COVID?

There is always a risk with vaccination as with any medication. It's small, but why take it? Taking a vaccine to make other people feel better is emotional and not scientific. There is no debate, there are blood tests. The same logic has been applied to measles.

You'd find that judging an individual's immunity by a vague notion of prior infection with Covid-19 is probably riskier than the vaccine.

Comirnaty had hundreds of millions of doses administered so far, and maybe - maybe - one woman died of myocarditis. This is nothing to potentially hundreds of thousands of prevented fatalities, much less the unpleasant to severe bouts of Covid-19.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#118

Post by bayesian_horse »

protomyth wrote: post #80
sokoloff wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there’s a risk with the blood draw as well. It’s also small.

That's not even in the same realm.

Pretty much. There are some indications that myocarditis, the most serious, but very rare and even more rarely fatal complication of the mRNA vaccines, is caused by accidental intravenous injection of the vaccine.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#119

Post by bayesian_horse »

lossolo wrote: post #81
Apes wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pro vaccine, and am convinced that the benefits of the vaccine absolutely eclipse the risks, but your math is so horrendously wrong here. Delete this. Edit, here's some corrections: This isn't 5 people in a row who had issues, it's 5 people within 4 nodes of distance in their social network. 4 nodes of distance is a lot of people, probably around 200,000 - 2,000,000. The odds of having severe complications from t…

> probably around 200,000 - 2,000,000 There are around 200 strokes per 100 000 people per year [1]. And number of "heart issues" is even more, only deaths because of heart issues are around ~170 per 100k people per year. Correlation is not causation. [1] https://www.world-stroke.org/assets/downloads/WSO_Global_Str...

The numbers are probably even less favorable since the vaccinations have been skewed to the older population for much of the time.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#120

Post by rkk3 »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #111
protomyth wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is advocating for people to get infected, but many front line workers have already had COVID while they were doing their hero work. Since studies are now showing they have better immunity than those who have received a vaccination, it is foolish to have them vaccinate. If you've had Measles, you aren't required to get a vaccination, so there is a well established precedent. The politicalization of the vaccine…

It's simply not possible to track "natural immunity" in a suitable way to protect the public. Also, while "natural immunity" may be better in some cases, it is much more unpredictable. We can't even tell for how long that natural immunity is good enough at all.

> It's simply not possible to track "natural immunity" in a suitable way to protect the public.

Why? Germany and many other countries don't differentiate between forms of immunity.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-require-proof-c...

Post reply on HN