211–220 of 371 posts
Whereas the vaccines (at least the mRNA ones) confer immunity against multiple strains.
The problem with these articles is that while it tries to inform. The people who don't understant the implications of getting covid will use it as support for their bias not to get vaccinated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Start treating people like adults, be upfront from the start, and you'll see anti-vax sentiment dissipate. I've only seen Anti-vaxxers treated as adults from the onset, being upfront about the data etc. It just get disputed, debated and then denied. I'm burnt out and numb to them at this point. I do agree with you that information shouldn't be omitted; However, the damage is done at this point. It's not going to st…
"Do this willingly and this can all be over...okay, that didn't work, now we're going to make you" isn't exactly what I'd call treating someone like an adult.
One can observe how this topic has become political, and is no longer scientific. Our focus and concerns are now all about existing and forthcoming restrictions and mandates for vaccinations and masks -- so much that information like this is no longer even interesting to most people. Not only uninteresting, but vulnerable to censors.
Comments like these about censorship keep coming up, yet this is the third straight day this topic is being discussed on the front page of HN. I see the same thing on Facebook. Half of my family is still complaining about censorship and how everything is politicized while they continue to post political memes about Hilary Clinton, false or misleading information about vaccines, etc. The other half quit facebook or oc…
Logic
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure, but we'd need to be dealing with something like your 0.000001% number before the risks started to outweigh the benefits, wouldn't we? Even a half or a tenth or a hundredth of a percent increase would be far beyond any sort of vaccination risk. > Also, at least one study has hinted that the second dose may reduce humoral immunity. I don't think we can base current best choices upon things which are merel…
I guess it would be comparing the improvement from a vaccine to the better natural immunity versus the risks from a vaccine. I don't know that this is obvious. For example, a hundredth of a percent improvement is 1 in 10k. And an already exposed person would be expected to have a less severe reaction if exposed again. Also some people worry about certain aspects of the vaccine. Did you know that it took over 25 years…
I'm not sure why the length of time it took to reach an accomplishment should undermine said accomplishment. They killed a lot of animals before they landed on the moon.
> Or that they have concerns about accumulation of these lipids in organs like the liver?
Who is they? How can you quantify and qualify this risk? Being "a numbers guy" why did you weight the odds of this potential issue as being more important than the known death risk and long term complications from COVID itself? Given the sheer number of immunized individuals we should be seeing hundreds of thousands of cases now, shouldn't we?
> Or that getting sick after the vaccine may not be healthy?
I mean, by definition being sick is not being healthy. You'll need to expand this a bit for it to make sense. What type of sick, what type of unhealthy. Why? What evidence do they have for such a concern?
> Or that they don't do a great job of looking for auto-immune reactions when it comes to vaccines?
Again, you're not saying who it is that doesn't do a great job, nor why this is important to be concerned about, or indeed if this concern has any sort of precedence. And again, why are you not concerned that COVID may introduce similar auto-immune reactions?
The term ”survivor bias” is usually used metaphorically, but in this case it applies literally. Putting in some caveats about the risks associated with infection is not enough. This is a garbage analysis that should never have been accepted for publication.
This sounds conflicting I read somewhere else earlier today, that the immunity you get from the actual disease is tailored towards the specific variant/strain. Whereas the vaccines (at least the mRNA ones) confer immunity against multiple strains.
This whole idea that the vaccine has magical properties to substantially exceed natural immunity on basic dimensions is straightforward BS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796
2.5 billion people have had at least one vaccine.
Does that mean Lisa Shaw did not die? Or that we would still have known about the cause of her death if she were not well known?
Or, is the number of people who are vaccinated enough of a reason to ignore the concerns of people who got Covid19 and recovered?
How much of "long Covid19" due to horrendous treatment at hospitals of Covid19 patients with unnecessary intubations, severe isolation from friends and family, and the general medial establishment panic?
In the U.S., 95% of deaths with Covid19 are in people over 50. Covid19 accounts for 0.7% of deaths among people under 18.[1]
I am sure, the case surveillance data[2] has more interesting nuggets. So, given low risk to an otherwise well person who has not been living in complete isolation since March 2020 (there are a lot of them in the world), given the trend of increasing breakthrough infections and deaths, it is not obvious that averages are very meaningful to individual decision making.
[1]: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex...
[2]: https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/COVID-19-Case-Surveil...
Long term it seems pretty straightforward. It is almost certain COVID will become endemic, and no known form of immunity whether from vaccination or prior infection confers sufficient permanent immunity against infection to stop re-infection but prior immunity (from vaccine or prior infection) does greatly reduce the chances that your infection will give you serious illness. You assumption therefore should be that ov…
Exactly. The only reason that the other four endemic human coronaviruses don't kill many people today is that most of us get infected as children and build up natural immunity which protects us later. But they can still be deadly to people with weak immune systems. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7102597/ Obviously most people weren't infected with SARS-CoV-2 as children so the smart move is to get vacci…
Why is "natural infections and recovery produce a better immune response than a vaccine" so controversial? Has it been this controversial for any other disease?
As you can see from some previous replies, it’s because people are less concerned with what’s true than with how (they believe) information will influence the behavior of others. The apparent prevalence of this attitude in media and public health is eroding the credibility of those institutions, imo.