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

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 371 posts

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#361

Post by sjg007 »

acituan wrote: post #351
sjg007 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is to translate it into a related human experience vs "throwing out a bunch of numbers and data".

Not only you are still throwing bunch of numbers and data only this time using comparatives ("more likely"), you seem to have also mistaken me as someone in need of convincing, which shows you haven't listened to what I've said careful enough to understand it. If I was a person that needed to be convinced, I would trust you even less just on that basis. Finally you make the assumption that people have a problem with…

At this point in the pandemic I would suggest they see a therapist.

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#362

Post by tootie »

peterbonney wrote: post #360
tootie wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you couldn't. You could have guessed but you wouldn't know. Now we have numbers. We know the level of immune response and the distribution. Like I said, imagine the opposite. If convalescence produced a weaker response than vaccines. That's equally possible and would have lead to some serious policy shift. Now we have a clear answer and can make informed decisions.

I couldn’t have guessed that we could find two samples of people such that antibodies in one group exceeded antibodies in the other? That is true for any non-uniform data set. As for your other point, I also maintain that the opposite finding would have told us equally little. Perhaps they had lower antibodies because they had less virulent variants/cases on average, which is why none of them died - again, “survivor…

I'm confused. If I could tell you want the expected level was before the study, then you'd be right not me. My point is that we didn't know for certain until the study was done. We could reasonably predict it would be "some" but not that if it was more or less than a vaccine response.

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#363

Post by Vecr »

DavideNL wrote: post #176
mikem170 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I believe the right test can differentiate between the different antibody responses, telling you if you reacted to the virus, reacted to the vaccine, or both. I looked into this at one time and think I found one that cost $220. Sorry I don not have the link handy.

If you or anyone could post more info i’d be grateful. Like what specifications to look for in a test. Also i wonder (approximately) how long after infection it would still be possible to test.

Get an antibody test that's for something other than the spike. If the vaccine you got only has the spike (all EUA/BLA in the US) the vaccine won't boost anything else.

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#364

Post by peterbonney »

tootie wrote: post #362
peterbonney wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t have guessed that we could find two samples of people such that antibodies in one group exceeded antibodies in the other? That is true for any non-uniform data set. As for your other point, I also maintain that the opposite finding would have told us equally little. Perhaps they had lower antibodies because they had less virulent variants/cases on average, which is why none of them died - again, “survivor…

I'm confused. If I could tell you want the expected level was before the study, then you'd be right not me. My point is that we didn't know for certain until the study was done. We could reasonably predict it would be "some" but not that if it was more or less than a vaccine response.

Scientists can’t develop a null hypothesis about the impact of the most studied virus in the history of humanity? If you have no null hypothesis then you shouldn’t be drawing conclusions from data, period.

Anyone who reads this site regularly is probably aware of the problems with non-registered data analyses in academia (often referred to as the “replication crisis”). We should be incredibly skeptical of any non-registered analysis, even when sample controls are used. When the study is unregistered AND the sample is uncontrolled the default posture should way beyond skepticism - it should be considered meaningless until reproduced by a better-structured analysis.

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#365

Post by DavideNL »

Vecr wrote: post #363
DavideNL wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you or anyone could post more info i’d be grateful. Like what specifications to look for in a test. Also i wonder (approximately) how long after infection it would still be possible to test.

Get an antibody test that's for something other than the spike. If the vaccine you got only has the spike (all EUA/BLA in the US) the vaccine won't boost anything else.

Thanks for your reply, that’s good to know; I got the Pfizer vaccine by the way (only 1 shot.)

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#366

Post by [deleted] »

seoaeu wrote: post #140
abnorxiouster wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question then is whether you want your first infection to be with or without prior immunity. If you want that first time to be with prior immunity get vaccinated as that is the only known way to get immunity before your first infection. You get vaccinated against an extremely specific variant, that does not guarantee any immunity for other variants unlike immunity from infection. Did you get vaccinated every ye…

Vaccination guarantees some immunity for all existing variants. Just because it is impossible to say for all hypothetical future variants doesn't mean you need to spread misinformation like that

[deleted]

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#367

Post by thehappypm »

dabbledash wrote: post #93
h2odragon wrote: post #62

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.

Agreed, it's very much an attempted form of manipulation by hardcore pro-vaccine people. There's a line of logic among anti-vaxxers of "I'll take my chances", and studies like these -- which show that taking your chances with COVID, surviving (which might be overwhelmingly likely), and then going on your merry way gives you equal or greater protection than the vaccine. Hardcore pro-vaxxers would much rather the narrative be "the vaccine, and only the vaccine, will protect you."

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#368

Post by thehappypm »

archagon wrote: post #235
sk2020 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s controversial because nobody can package and sell “natural” immunity. Given that there are about 7.5B people in the world, RNA injections are, apparently, only good for 90 days, and that Pfizer (or someone) gets $20/injection, the market is about $600B a year. Do you remember 20 years ago when the people on TV said that terrorism was an existential and imminent threat and the result was defense and surveillance…

> RNA injections are, apparently, only good for 90 days Er, what?

Perhaps they're referring to 90 days of storage?

Re: Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

#370

Post by Pokepokalypse »

fncypants wrote: post #133
yodsanklai wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This feels like an irresponsible title on behalf of the author The title describes the content of the article. I think people should be treated as adults (esp. on HN). We should be able to discuss Covid-19 science and data without always fearing misinterpretation from anti-vaxxers.

Sorry, no. This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with. Communication is key. Scientists and health professionals fail at it. Listing cold facts does not effectively communicate to the broad public, because they receive the message not by learning the new facts to change their word view, but by trying to fit it in their world view. Messaging is critical in public communication.

>Scientists and health professionals fail at it.

They do just fine.

The problem is "science" "journalism".

Post reply on HN