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

Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

cell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 222 posts

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#201

Post by amanaplanacanal »

arein3 wrote: post #192
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #42

Not to disagree with the effectiveness of immunity gained by getting Covid-19, but also: "The evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants ... compared to antibodies acquired from an infection." https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera... "Vaccination offers longer, stronger immunity" https://www.jhsph.edu/cov…

you can look at jewish data for a highly vaccinated population 50% newly infected are unvaccinated, 50% are vaccinated and only 1% are getting the virus the second time

I assume you mean Israeli data?

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#202

Post by criticaltinker »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #134
slumpt_ wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s actually incorrect. Someone was kind enough to cite in another reply to me. I’m honestly a bit disturbed how much confidence software engineers have in their consumption of virology research. My good friend has worked in it for 10+ years not including a doctorate and worked on an mRNA vaccine. I trust his takes more than any media and certainly more than some of these folks replying doubting the state of the s…

Hi Pot, meet Kettle? My statement literally starts with "I'm not sure...". You begin yours with "That's actually incorrect." Which expresses more confidence? My opinion is based on a conversation with a Ph.D immunologist that happens to be a friend as well. And if that's not enough here is a paper from a totally separate lab that has similar conclusions, with actual data https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.0…

Just wanted to say thanks for the citation here, and FWIW all the literature I'm aware of supports the statements you've made in these comments.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#203

Post by mike00632 »

timr wrote: post #111
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #42

Not to disagree with the effectiveness of immunity gained by getting Covid-19, but also: "The evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants ... compared to antibodies acquired from an infection." https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera... "Vaccination offers longer, stronger immunity" https://www.jhsph.edu/cov…

I am a believer in vaccines, but you're mischaracterizing the first link by selective omission. You've cut out the critical words of the sentence (emphasized): > The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an inf…

"It can't be."

What!? This is an extraordinary claim that you state with zero evidence. It relies entirely on the naturalistic fallacy.

Not only is it possible for vaccines to confer better immunity but there are clear ways to test this empirically, which studies certainly have, like this one:

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...

It looks at reinfection rates of unvaxxed people who had COVID vs vaccinated people.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#204

Post by thethirdone »

mike00632 wrote: post #203
timr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a believer in vaccines, but you're mischaracterizing the first link by selective omission. You've cut out the critical words of the sentence (emphasized): > The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an inf…

"It can't be." What!? This is an extraordinary claim that you state with zero evidence. It relies entirely on the naturalistic fallacy. Not only is it possible for vaccines to confer better immunity but there are clear ways to test this empirically, which studies certainly have, like this one: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... It looks at reinfection rates of unvaxxed people who had COVI…

I believe the "It can't be" is not a statement about whether natural immunity is better.

Instead I believe it to mean "It cannot be evidence that vaccines provide better immunity than natural infections".

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#205

Post by criticaltinker »

thethirdone wrote: post #204
mike00632 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It can't be." What!? This is an extraordinary claim that you state with zero evidence. It relies entirely on the naturalistic fallacy. Not only is it possible for vaccines to confer better immunity but there are clear ways to test this empirically, which studies certainly have, like this one: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... It looks at reinfection rates of unvaxxed people who had COVI…

I believe the "It can't be" is not a statement about whether natural immunity is better. Instead I believe it to mean "It cannot be evidence that vaccines provide better immunity than natural infections".

I agree on this interpretation.

The article referenced by GP cites the same paper mentioned in a different comment, see that thread for some additional discussion and citations that provide counter evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28108039.

In summary, there is currently no scientific consensus that vaccines provide 'better' immunity compared to natural infection. There is evidence that they induce similar but subtly different immune responses.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#206

Post by pfisherman »

peteradio wrote: post #176
ithkuil wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not deriding the honest worry. Nobody can know with certainty anything about the future. I'm worrying about the paralyzing effects of a meme that says that since it's technically possible for an adverse affect to happen at an arbitrary point in the future, we cannot consider an option to curb the effects of a known problem we have right now. Often I'm accused of dismissing the possibility of adverse effects like…

I will try to answer your questions from my point of view. It appears "off" that there is no nuance to this vaccination strategy. It seems especially odd to advocate for vaccinating children who stand to benefit very little personally. I had planned to get vaccinated but have been pretty concerned by the totalitarian vibes I've been getting lately. So I guess I've decided to let my civics slide to match. I will get t…

Are those stats based on the alpha variant (COVID-classic) or the delta variant (new and improved)? Also worth considering that rural areas are underserved wrt to healthcare, and typically experience worse outcomes under the same disease burden.

Your risk of catastrophic illness from COVID may be low - keeping in mind that population level statistics are not very good predictors of individual outcomes - but significantly higher than zero. Vaccination would reduce catastrophic risk to just about zero, with very little cost to you both in terms of risk and time/money. I guess what I am failing to understand is what possible benefit you are getting out of not getting vaccinated.

The way I see it, you can eliminate catastrophic risk to yourself (and reduce it for others) at very little personal cost, but are choosing not to for seemingly no benefit.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#207

Post by mike00632 »

criticaltinker wrote: post #205
thethirdone wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the "It can't be" is not a statement about whether natural immunity is better. Instead I believe it to mean "It cannot be evidence that vaccines provide better immunity than natural infections".

I agree on this interpretation. The article referenced by GP cites the same paper mentioned in a different comment, see that thread for some additional discussion and citations that provide counter evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28108039 . In summary, there is currently no scientific consensus that vaccines provide 'better' immunity compared to natural infection. There is evidence that they induce sim…

Nobody claimed there is currently "scientific consensus" (but there is currently a lot of scientific evidence). What we're taking issue with is the unfounded claim that 'natural immunity' must be better than vaccine induced immunity.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#208

Post by 1ark »

Natsu wrote: post #163
Loveaway wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Stop it. It's not simple enough. Stop this crazy obsession. Adverse reaction are real. Here's a woman who has had her legs amputated[1] a few days after receiving the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Stated cause: she contracted COVID. More cases like it, blood clots, heart inflammation, sudden death. You all know this is happening, don't you? Close your eyes and sweep it under the rug. Keep ignoring the uncomf…

Adverse reactions are real, but they are orders of magnitude less likely than those caused by Covid itself and Covid is capable of causing basically all the same long tail harms the vaccines can. Which makes sense--many of them are made of some part of the virus, so how can they be more deadly than Covid itself if they're just a piece of it? It's weird to me that people aren't willing to trade a 2% risk for a 0.0002%…

Even if the percentages are exaggerated, it also depends on lifestyles. If you WFH and closest contact with people is that of grocery shopping, the 2% becomes closer to 0% because you aren't going to contract the virus.

But it's logical to calculate a risk percentage and then make a decision. Easy for the brain. But it simplifies reality down to a number, ignoring all those people that had adverse effects and took it on the chin in solidarity "for humanity". What did they get in return? It is a bit unethical.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#209

Post by mike00632 »

thethirdone wrote: post #204
mike00632 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It can't be." What!? This is an extraordinary claim that you state with zero evidence. It relies entirely on the naturalistic fallacy. Not only is it possible for vaccines to confer better immunity but there are clear ways to test this empirically, which studies certainly have, like this one: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... It looks at reinfection rates of unvaxxed people who had COVI…

I believe the "It can't be" is not a statement about whether natural immunity is better. Instead I believe it to mean "It cannot be evidence that vaccines provide better immunity than natural infections".

The idea that vaccines provide more antibodies that fight a wider variety of COVID can indeed suggest that vaccines create better immunity. The writer here makes a firm denial of this and then uses their denial to offer a fatalistic take on what is possible to show about vaccines with this paper. Of course, outside of this paper there are very simple studies that have been conducted which contradict the bias illustrated here.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#210

Post by Natsu »

1ark wrote: post #208
Natsu wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adverse reactions are real, but they are orders of magnitude less likely than those caused by Covid itself and Covid is capable of causing basically all the same long tail harms the vaccines can. Which makes sense--many of them are made of some part of the virus, so how can they be more deadly than Covid itself if they're just a piece of it? It's weird to me that people aren't willing to trade a 2% risk for a 0.0002%…

Even if the percentages are exaggerated, it also depends on lifestyles. If you WFH and closest contact with people is that of grocery shopping, the 2% becomes closer to 0% because you aren't going to contract the virus. But it's logical to calculate a risk percentage and then make a decision. Easy for the brain. But it simplifies reality down to a number, ignoring all those people that had adverse effects and took it…

That's still non-zero and it's not clear how many more years this will linger or if it will become endemic at this rate.

I've avoided Covid the entire time as have many, but for how many years can we live like hermits?

Post reply on HN