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

Why the Covid Vaccines Aren’t Dangerous

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 119 posts

Re: Why the Covid Vaccines Aren’t Dangerous

#91

Post by [deleted] »

CozyBearNotSoy wrote: post #68
honkycat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Skeptics" is a very generous portrayal of the anti-vax crowd. They are not skeptics. Their opposition is not based on missing information, it is based on conforming to an ideology. Which is diametrically opposed to skepticism.

People of all classes, religions, races, and political affiliations are among those who don't want to be injected. Men and women, young and old. Knowing this would require you to talk to people out in the real world in such a way that they think they can trust you, since most are terrified to speak up. It is hard to do this unless you are sincerely one of them. What you see on TV or YouTube isn't representative of th…

[deleted]

Re: Why the Covid Vaccines Aren’t Dangerous

#92

Post by OkiJ »

boyleingpoint wrote: post #74
honkycat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Skeptics" is a very generous portrayal of the anti-vax crowd. They are not skeptics. Their opposition is not based on missing information, it is based on conforming to an ideology. Which is diametrically opposed to skepticism.

Do you think it's possible that people could be generally pro-vaccine and be sceptical of the covid-19 vaccine? You're trying to lump people who have legitimate concerns about the covid-19 vaccine in particular with the vaccines cause autism/magnetic vaccines crowd, and it's very dishonest. This is not some monolithic movement, and I disavow the people who are anti-vax in principle. I'm rooting for the covid vaccines…

> You're trying to lump people who have legitimate concerns about the covid-19 vaccine in particular

There are no such "legitimate concerns" (or legitimate arguments for that matter). You trying to lump people that are delusional, uneducated, fear-mongering deniers in with rational people that evaluate reality on its own merits is the "very dishonest" part.

Re: Why the Covid Vaccines Aren’t Dangerous

#93

Post by criticaltinker »

mdorazio wrote: post #61
dev_tty01 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. Vaccinated and previously infected people are much less likely to be reinfected than unvaccinated previously infected. Here is a recent study: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... Reinfection was twice as likely among unvaccinated previously infected. The more recent data includes the effects of the delta variant. So, the risk of Covid is much higher and the risk of adverse effect…

That CDC report is very careful to word its abstract to hide that the findings are from a very small group of people (a whopping 50 fully vaccinated) without even mentioning overall immunity levels across the general population. I'm not arguing that vaccine + natural antibodies aren't more effective - they are - but you're going to have to do a lot better than that to justify wanting to vaccinate everyone who's alrea…

GP was referencing this study [0] when claiming "Reinfection was twice as likely among unvaccinated previously infected".

That CDC study has a relatively small sample size (N=738) and uses data from a single state during a 2-month period. The confidence interval on the "2.34" odds ratio is large (95% CI = 1.58–3.47). Most importantly, a tremendous amount of literature contradicts those findings.

Nearly every large scale and long term serological study has demonstrated that immunity acquired through previous infection is at least equally effective as vaccination in preventing reinfection. I have yet to see any CDC publication that acknowledges or cites these reputable findings. Why is that?

- A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals. [1] (N=25,661)

- In conclusion, documented SARS-CoV-2 reinfections were exceedingly rare, with an incidence of 0.3 infections for every 1000 persons-week, and none were severe. Seroconversion after symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection seems to be associated with a 10-fold reduction in risk of successive viral infection contamination, lasting at least 8 months. [2] (N=1,494)

- The study results suggest that reinfections are rare events and patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have a lower risk of reinfection. Natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 appears to confer a protective effect for at least a year, which is similar to the protection reported in recent vaccine studies. [3] (N=15,075)

- Reinfection is rare in the young and international population of Qatar. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months. [4] (N=192,967)

- The degree of protection (10-fold) associated with seropositivity appears to be comparable to that observed in the initial reports of the efficacy of mRNA vaccines in large clinical trials. [5] (N=3,257,478)

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844963/

[2] Risk of Reinfection After Seroconversion to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A Population-based Propensity-score Matched Cohort Study https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...

[3] Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 1 Year After Primary Infection in a Population in Lombardy, Italy https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...

[4] SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258953702...

[5] Association of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositive Antibody Test With Risk of Future Infection https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...

Re: Why the Covid Vaccines Aren’t Dangerous

#94

Post by dev_tty01 »

boyleingpoint wrote: post #80
dev_tty01 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. Vaccinated and previously infected people are much less likely to be reinfected than unvaccinated previously infected. Here is a recent study: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... Reinfection was twice as likely among unvaccinated previously infected. The more recent data includes the effects of the delta variant. So, the risk of Covid is much higher and the risk of adverse effect…

There's a study out of Israel that say the exact opposite https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-... This isn't something that can just be hand-waved way

No, the Israel study is vaccinated vs previously infected. The study I pointed to was vaccinated and previously infected vs only previously infected. I was responding to an assertion that vaccination offers no benefit to the previously infected. The article you reference confirms the point I made. Here is the quote from the article:

"Giving a single shot of the vaccine to those who had been previously infected also appeared to boost their protection."

Re: Why the Covid Vaccines Aren’t Dangerous

#95

Post by josephcsible »

jsnell wrote: post #69
hammock wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>risk of Covid is much higher and the risk of adverse effects are approximately zero for getting the vaccine. Where is your data for this? What is the risk of a naturally immune person catching Covid, and being either a)symptomatic, b)hospitalized, or c)killed? How does this risk compare to the risk of a serious adverse event or long-term consequence such as autoimmune disease from the vaccine in a healthy young man?

We've given literally billions of vaccine doses at this point. The post-vaccination tracking has been able to pick up side-effects affecting 1/100k patients. Those side-effects have also been made public by the relevant authorities immediately when concerns were raised. This tracking has not produced any kind of evidence for auto-immune disease for the mRNA vaccines. And no, it cannot be that the side-effects you're…

> And no, it cannot be that the side-effects you're worried about haven't happened yet. If they happened, they'd happen within weeks of the vaccination.

What evidence is there of this?

Re: Why the Covid Vaccines Aren’t Dangerous

#96

Post by Exmoor »

aiilns wrote: post #84

I feel that articles like this one are much closer to propaganda than to any explanation of science. 1. In comparing risks of adverse effects of drugs with those of covid vaccines the author is missing a big point. Namely, medications are given to help patients (i.e. already sick people) or prophylactically to people in serious risk of developing an illness. Covid vaccines have been given and continue to be given to…

> Now this is quite problematic the way I see it. First off, I have a medical degree and I find the technology incredibly complex. Secondly, the author uses "simplicity" as a crutch to support her argument further down that since mRNA translation happens outside the nucleus (where the DNA is) there is in no way any interaction between DNA and mRNA.

If someone is concerned about this they are either ignorant of how mRNA viruses such as SARS-COV-2 (and every "cold" and flu virus) reproduce or have to explain away how having a fixed amount of vaccine mRNA translation is bad, but having an unlimited amount of SARS-COV-2 translation (including those same spike proteins) is fine. This is a process that has happened literally billions, if not trillions, of times in every single HN readers body with other viruses not some exotic thing.

Re: Why the Covid Vaccines Aren’t Dangerous

#98

Post by HonestOp001 »

OkiJ wrote: post #92
boyleingpoint wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it's possible that people could be generally pro-vaccine and be sceptical of the covid-19 vaccine? You're trying to lump people who have legitimate concerns about the covid-19 vaccine in particular with the vaccines cause autism/magnetic vaccines crowd, and it's very dishonest. This is not some monolithic movement, and I disavow the people who are anti-vax in principle. I'm rooting for the covid vaccines…

> You're trying to lump people who have legitimate concerns about the covid-19 vaccine in particular There are no such "legitimate concerns" (or legitimate arguments for that matter). You trying to lump people that are delusional, uneducated, fear-mongering deniers in with rational people that evaluate reality on its own merits is the "very dishonest" part.

Are people dying from the vaccine?

Are the vaccinated experiencing adverse reactions?

Have vaccines in the past been proven to be dangerous? Looking at you anthrax vaccine.

None of these are zero.

If you can pass the throng test and argue why their might be hesitancy, it would make you more understanding.

Re: Why the Covid Vaccines Aren’t Dangerous

#99

Post by honkycat »

HonestOp001 wrote: post #98
OkiJ wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're trying to lump people who have legitimate concerns about the covid-19 vaccine in particular There are no such "legitimate concerns" (or legitimate arguments for that matter). You trying to lump people that are delusional, uneducated, fear-mongering deniers in with rational people that evaluate reality on its own merits is the "very dishonest" part.

Are people dying from the vaccine? Are the vaccinated experiencing adverse reactions? Have vaccines in the past been proven to be dangerous? Looking at you anthrax vaccine. None of these are zero. If you can pass the throng test and argue why their might be hesitancy, it would make you more understanding.

> Are people dying from the vaccine?

No.

> Are the vaccinated experiencing adverse reactions?

Occasionally people will experience mild adverse reactions. This is actually covered in the article above.

However, adverse vaccine reactions are happening at a much lower rate than actual DEATH of healthy individuals from Covid19 itself. Let along "long covid" symptoms.

> Have vaccines in the past been proven to be dangerous? Looking at you anthrax vaccine.

Gulf war syndrome has not been established to be caused by the anthrax vaccine. So no.

> None of these are zero.

They don't have to be zero, but 0.0003 is a much smaller number than the adverse reactions to catching Covid itself.

> If you can pass the throng test and argue why their might be hesitancy, it would make you more understanding.

I don't know what "the throng test" is but I don't think WE are the ones that do not understand. It is you who does not understand.

The fact you site a conspiracy theory about gulf war syndrome makes me believe you are not being honest.

Re: Why the Covid Vaccines Aren’t Dangerous

#100

Post by redis_mlc »

learc83 wrote: post #88
redis_mlc wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not particularly concerned about the risk of undiscovered long-term side effects We don't know the long-term effects of corona or corona vaccines on the female reproductive system, especially eggs. Considering that if eggs are attacked, that's the end of us, so we should learn more and fast.

There is no realistic theoretical mechanism for a delayed attack on the female reproductive system, and billions of mRNA doses have been administered over the last year with no measurable drop in female fertility.

Sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about.

There are actually papers on the initial effects on the female reproductive system. What they don't know yet is what the long-term effects are, especially eggs.

And vaccines have not been available for a year.

It's sad how anti-science HN readers are.

Post reply on HN