The Plague of the Poor • Hacker News Board

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#151

Post by JKCalhoun » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

rkk3 wrote: post #122

bayesian_horse wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's a prominent example of the left politicizing the vaccine... "If Trump tells us to take it [The Vaccine], I won't" - Kamala Harris https://www.cbsnews.com/video/2020-vp-debate-kamala-harris-o...

If you're going to say "the left" does this, you should be able to do better than a singular example from over year ago.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#152

Post by bayesian_horse » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

labawi wrote: post #145

bayesian_horse wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How about judging by blood reactivity to virus protein in an ELISA test? [1] Why is it riskier and to whom? [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/141777/download

This kind of testing isn't exactly cheap and it is hard to standardize because of all the variables and the fickleness of the process. The one you link is specific to one particular laboratory. These tests also tend to fail a few weeks or months after the infection.

Nor does it actually prove any immunity against disease. You can only assume that these antibodies probe prior contact to the virus and that this prior contact resulted in a robust response. The strength of the immunity cannot be inferred from such titres...

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#153

Post by rowinofwin » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 10:36 PM UTC

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…

On top of that, the evidence is strongly suggesting that natural immunity is actually worse than vaccine immunity. COVID seems to mess with the immune system in a significant way and in doing so makes natural immunity a little shoddy. The vaccines give something that doesn't mess with the immune system, just provides it with the right target. This means the immune system is able to actually learn how to fight covid without fighting and being hurt by covid. Seems like a simple distinction that anyone who "does their own research" should be able to understand but alas, morons.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#154

Post by bayesian_horse » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 10:38 PM UTC

rkk3 wrote: post #146

bayesian_horse wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN is not "the left". Nor did Kamala Harris throw doubt on an existing and proven vaccine. No vaccine had been approved at that point, whereas Trump was blundering through the pandemic response in search of any way to save his political hide. There was a lot of evidence Trump put pressure on public health officials to downplay the pandemic and put people at more risk than necessary. Trump had already been known to b…

> Nor did Kamala Harris throw doubt on an existing and proven vaccine They did exist, were 6+ months and several stages into trials & were given temporary authorization only 2 months latter. She fomented fear & distrust about the safety of vaccines to score talking points in a debate. Not sure why you think she should get a free pass.

You are completely lying. The vaccines weren't approved yet, end of story.

Trump admitted in interviews with Bob Woodward that he was lying about the pandemic. What more proof do you need for him to be completely untrustworthy on the topic?

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#155

Post by CodeWriter23 » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 10:55 PM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #123

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only one problem with your 1-2% risk calculation. In the US at least 100M people have survived infection. Subsidized vaccination of these people amounts to nothing more than payola on a massive scale.

We actually don't know how many of these people have a current immunity, for several reasons, starting with when the infection happened and not ending with knowing who had what strain of the virus. It's also not clear every one of the 100M people would be able to reliable prove he had Covid-19. Or that it is possible to prevent people from somehow faking that proof. We do know that a vaccination after recovery result…

Straw man argument detected: if one has to show a pass to get in somewhere, the bureaucratic load for assigning an “approved” status is equivalent whether is a test result or a proof of being jabbed.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#156

Post by eezing » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

Is this Facebook?

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#157

Post by bayesian_horse » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 11:07 PM UTC

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #155

bayesian_horse wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We actually don't know how many of these people have a current immunity, for several reasons, starting with when the infection happened and not ending with knowing who had what strain of the virus. It's also not clear every one of the 100M people would be able to reliable prove he had Covid-19. Or that it is possible to prevent people from somehow faking that proof. We do know that a vaccination after recovery result…

Straw man argument detected: if one has to show a pass to get in somewhere, the bureaucratic load for assigning an “approved” status is equivalent whether is a test result or a proof of being jabbed.

Nope, there are three vaccines, and (in the US) only one kind of document that proves vaccination with them. On the other hand, you'd either have to prove positive infection and recovery (with multiple test results) to someone (whom?) or to standardize some kind of antibody testing which also has to take place soon after the infection, because those antibodies don't last very long. The immunity might last longer, but the kind of antibodies that are modestly easy to detect, don't. But because of the nature of those kinds of tests, every single lab would need to be certified individually and there would need to be another step to actually issue some kind of certificate.

So yes, to me it sounds massively more complicated and expensive than just getting two harmless vaccinations.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#158

Post by labawi » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 11:13 PM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #150

labawi wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you please educate me on > how complicated the testing is or how many health providers and labs there are. AFAIK, you can actually test blood reactivity to virus protein, proving a positive. I'm not sure how you would prove that a person actually got vaccinated and it wasn't the case of doctor pouring vaccine down the drain, someone else taking the vaccine instead etc.

I don't have time to explain to you the intricacies of antibody testing. However, it is much more difficult than to standardize on what antigens and what titres to pick and how to correlate that for a "positive" result. Testing for neutralizing antibodies is even harder, because it involves isolating the antibodies and testing them against live virus particles and a cell culture. And yes, standardizing such testing,…

Iceland accepts either vaccine or previous infection certificates[1][2]. They seemed to handle covid well, being fairly strict.

Fake vaccinations[3], including fake certificates are popular, especially when they are forced. If you want a fake vaccination, I know a guy who knows a guy. Point is - it's not bullshit.

Yes, checking certificates is easier than testing for antibodies. While harder, I still think antibody tests would have less false positives and I most certainly don't think the relative easiness to administer vaccines is a good reason to require everyone to take them, even when they are more immune then those who only got the vaccine.

A friend had an antibody test as he already had covid and didn't want to go for a vaccine. It was no big deal.

[1] https://www.covid.is/sub-categories/travel-to-and-within-ice...

[2] https://www.landlaeknir.is/um-embaettid/greinar/grein/item43...

[3] https://text.npr.org/1026863219

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#159

Post by Nasrudith » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 11:21 PM UTC

p49k wrote: post #53

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?

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.

People seem to have completely forgotten the difference between circulating antibodies and immune cells. If somebody had Covid-19 a while ago and didn't have exposure to it they may still have immune cells but no circulating antibodies.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#160

Post by labawi » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 11:29 PM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #152

labawi wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about judging by blood reactivity to virus protein in an ELISA test? [1] Why is it riskier and to whom? [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/141777/download

This kind of testing isn't exactly cheap and it is hard to standardize because of all the variables and the fickleness of the process. The one you link is specific to one particular laboratory. These tests also tend to fail a few weeks or months after the infection. Nor does it actually prove any immunity against disease. You can only assume that these antibodies probe prior contact to the virus and that this prior c…

It's expensive, so noone should have the option even if they pay for it? (friend paid about 20€)

It can have false negatives, making people needlessly take a vaccine, so everyone should take the vaccine in the name of equality?

Vaccine certificates neither prove you actually got the vaccine (though highly likely), nor do they prove any immunity against disease (though fairly likely).

With this level of arguments, I can argue noone should be permitted to take the vaccine.