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

Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

medrxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 361 posts

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#161

Post by krrrh »

handmodel wrote: post #52
OJFord wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not public health policy anywhere that I'm aware of? But vaccine rollout would be way quicker, and 'positive test or vaccinated' proportion of populations would be way higher, and that would influence discussion of other aspects, like 'herd immunity' for example.

My one anti-vax friend (who I make fun of constantly for not getting it) is constantly bombarded with people telling him that his previous infection doesn't give him any immunity. I already knew that was false - and I think he knew that too. It probably fed into his (motivated) reasoning to hold out this long if people are telling him so much information they know to be untrue. Still, I don't see how public health wo…

We don’t know that there is no downside which is why these vaccines were approved via Emergency Use Authorization. At the very least I and several people I know were absolutely flattened by the vaccines for a day or two. One guy I know had very low blood sugar for weeks afterwards and needed medical intervention.

The vaccines are important in establishing herd immunity, but I don’t understand the desire to jab people who already have established immunity.

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#162

Post by mlyle »

tomp wrote: post #9
mlyle wrote: post #8

Note this is to inform public health / prioritization in the short term. (Which is less necessary places like the US where there is excess vaccine supply). We know that past infection greatly reduces risk (and this helps quantify it). At the same time, vaccination is thought to cause a much broader and more durable immune response than natural infection. We'd like people who were previously infected to get vaccinated…

> vaccination is thought to cause a much broader and more durable immune response than natural infection Why? Is there any data to support this assertion? If anything, being ill (symptomatic) means the viral load was high in the body, so the immune system response should be as well, and in addition, infection should cause the immune system to produce antibodies to all parts of the virus, not just the spike protein, a…

Just a little more data--

For a long time (from the phase 2 trials of the vaccines) we knew that they generated a very large immune response compared to natural infection: https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/jour...

And recent research shows vaccination far outperforming past history of natural infection wrt: variants--https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6/figures/1

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#163

Post by roody15 »

microtherion wrote: post #15
mikedilger wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I have any knowledge on this subject, but why would a vaccine that stimulates the creation of a bit of spike protein create a "much broader and more durable immune response" than the actual virus which I presume creates a hell of a lot more of that exact same spike protein? Genuinely curious, because my simpleton assumption would be the opposite.

My mental model of this (and I'm not a medical expert) is that (a) for a given amount of spike protein, the immune response is similar, whether the protein originates from the vaccine or the actual virus, but (b) since the vaccine is lacking the actual health threatening properties of the virus, you can expose people to massive doses of it without incurring much risk.

My place employment had almost 280 people get vaccinated (myself included). On the second dose well over 50 percent came down with flu like symptoms about 12 hours later. I was sick for 3 days and my wife was sick for 2.

  Would be curious on this forum on how many people got sick from Moderna.

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#164

Post by cdolan »

daenz wrote: post #128

Why is it that so many people seem to be biased against evidence that our immune systems do a pretty good job? It's as if they want the vaccine to be the only thing that helps stop COVID.

Fear is one hell of a drug.

But really, I think many people are laser focused on not just minimizing risk of COVID, but now trying to zero out COVID risk, that having any reason to delay receipt of a vaccine isn't a pre-existing medical condition is considered a form of aggression.

At some point we transitioned from "bend the curve" to "eradicate the virus", and this seems like a byproduct of that mental shift.

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#165

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

briefcomment wrote: post #158
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most authorities are downplaying natural immunity, despite evidence like this. OK, I think I can agree with this, I've seen lots of "getting the vaccine provides much better immunity than getting Covid"-type statements that seemed more like conjecture. > The more widely this spreads, the more people will realize it's ok to rely on natural immunity, and to not blanket demonize those who are unvaccinated. Is this a s…

> the problem is that "acquiring natural immunity" often results in death, especially for vulnerable populations You're reading beyond what I'm saying. My point is that there is no need to push those who have already gotten Covid to also get the vaccine. I'm not saying anything about getting sick as an alternative to getting the vaccine.

Thanks, and apologies, I misunderstood your comment.

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#166

Post by jquery »

daenz wrote: post #149
ceejayoz wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our immune systems are pretty amazing. It's also good to help them along sometimes.

That does not conflict with being unbiased towards evidence that our immune systems are effective against covid.

As long as the initial infection didn’t kill or incapacitate you.

Edit: most bubonic plague infections didn’t kill so I don’t know what the point of “most people survive” is. The problem is that some don’t.

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#167

Post by jquery »

np_tedious wrote: post #11

I did have covid (not diagnosed while active but shown in antibody test), and I got vaccinated significantly later. This was not driven by belief in medical need, but by social/rules need. You get no "points" for being recovered like you do for a proof of vaccination.

Antibody test is not proof of prior infection.

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#168

Post by colordrops »

cuchoi wrote: post #109
briefcomment wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most authorities are downplaying natural immunity, despite evidence like this. The more widely this spreads, the more people will realize it's ok to rely on natural immunity, and to not blanket demonize those who are unvaccinated.

My wife and I got COVID twice 9 months apart last year. The second time my wife ended up in the hospital. We both got vaccinated as soon as we could.

Re-infection is very rare, so the chance that it happened to two people in the same household is extremely rare. Are you certain you were infected with covid both times?

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#169

Post by ufo »

OJFord wrote: post #40
epgui wrote: post #21

Any other result would have been surprising. Why is this interesting, beyond just confirming what we were already 99.99% certain we knew? -- biochemist

Because it's not public health policy anywhere that I'm aware of? But vaccine rollout would be way quicker, and 'positive test or vaccinated' proportion of populations would be way higher, and that would influence discussion of other aspects, like 'herd immunity' for example.

I wish. Here in Brazil it's effectively the official policy. Multiple times our president has shown that he'd rather give us chloroquine instead of vaccines.

Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

#170

Post by jquery »

isaacremuant wrote: post #27
joshuahughes wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds uncomfortably like coercion...

It is coercion. People have been coerced at every step of this crisis, by the threat of police violence, by the threat of reputation or job loss, by the the threat of fines and more. Hopefully, like we see with the wuhan lab theory suppression, as time goes on, a lot of what people suffered will come to light, and be contrasted by the benefit of the elite and political class during all this.

And then there’s guys who believed in the Wuhan lab theory from the start, and also think the vast majority of the so-called “vaccine hesitant” have absolutely nothing of value to say about Covid-19 and have no business arguing with public health authorities on the issue. They should put the donut down, forego the lunchtime cheeseburger and the evening beer, and stop worrying about incredibly small chance of something bad happening because they wore a seatbelt (got vaxxed).
Post reply on HN