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

291–300 of 361 posts

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

#291

Post by galoisgirl »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #274
cstejerean wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's also evidence that asymptomatic people don't spread COVID. This would mean that if they don't have symptoms, you won't get it, and if they do and they're like most people, they'll stay home which means no transmission. We wouldn’t be in the middle of a pandemic if this were true.

It's been a pretty mild pandemic. What has been newsworthy about was the removal of freedom, not the number of dead people. It's flu-like transmission - which is mostly through droplets. If you're not sneezing in the face of people you don't have high chances of passing it around

It's the 9th pandemic in human history in the number of deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics#Major_epidem...

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

#292

Post by estaseuropano »

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.

Good science tests assumptions. Even if the result often ends up unsurprising it is important to test assumptions as else we never find out which ones are wrong.

There were a number of cases of individuals being infected a second time after covid recovery. This article corroborates the evidence that individuals that had covid might have a low chance of reinfection and therefore might not need a vaccine. If you look at some other comments here you will see that still the evidence is not 100% clear cut, so good that data analysis continues in the future, e.g. to see if there are differences in how long the effect lasts between different kinds of vaccines and natural infection (there is also more than one way to have covid).

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

#293

Post by galoisgirl »

colordrops wrote: post #168
cuchoi wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

People in the same household have high chances of infecting each other.

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

#294

Post by benjaminwootton »

iso1210 wrote: post #266
sgt101 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this study it could be a long time before we know that - I think cov-19 in the presence of a non overwhelmed medical system armed with steroids and oxygen kills less than 2/100 infected folk so getting enough incidents in either of those arms of a trial is going to be hard work.

The death rate for certain demographics (especially say over 70s) is far higher than 2-in-100. While some countries have high levels of vaccination - especially in those demographics - most don't. The UK is enterring a third wave, and has a high number of elderly people having been fully (2 shot, mainly AZ) vaccinated. Early indications are that those enterring hospitals now on the whole have not been fully vaccinate…

And for most people under 70, it's way under that, FWIW.

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

#295

Post by marton78 »

galoisgirl wrote: post #293
colordrops wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

People in the same household have high chances of infecting each other.

Please read that comment again, it's about RE-infection

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

#296

Post by kalleboo »

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.

I assumed that the fear was that lots of people who think they got covid but were never tested (or people who falsely tested negative) would use this as an excuse to not get the vaccine

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

#297

Post by jkhdigital »

astrange wrote: post #271
barney54 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the evidence that “we have reason to believe that over time, immune defenses from COVID-19 infection seems to decline”?

I think this is another case where improved surveillance is turning up things that, while they look bad, happen with other vaccines and never turn out to be a problem. The same goes for variants, which a lot of people expect to break through vaccines because that's how the flu works, but it doesn't actually seem like they will.

Yes, the extreme focus of attention is turning routine and expected medical observations into scary anecdotal news cycles.

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

#298

Post by bregma »

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

If medicine depended on what we already know to be true then Big Leech would be in control of healthcare.

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

#300

Post by mnw21cam »

Here is one significant problem with this preprint:

"The health system never had a requirement for asymptomatic employee test screening. Most of the positive tests, therefore, would have been tests done to evaluate suspicious symptoms."

In other words, there could have been people who caught Covid-19, but because they had already had it, the symptoms were mild and they didn't get tested. It may be possible for these people to still be infectious (we don't really know this). For a proper study, they need to look at a decent population of people who have regular asymptomatic screening.

Post reply on HN