Three quarters of infected in Massachusetts outbreak were vaccinated, CDC says | Hacker News Reader

Three quarters of infected in Massachusetts outbreak were vaccinated, CDC says

thehill.com

"The new data found that fully vaccinated people who get infected carry as much of the virus in their nose as unvaccinated people, and could spread it to others"

There goes that "for the greater good" incentive for getting vaccinated. And people are still thinking vaccines should be mandatory?

It seems that the only people who don't spread now are people who have previously had COVID-19 or those who have cross reactive immunity from a previous coronavirus strain. Even better if you've gotten a single dose in addition to a natural infection.

I propose robust research and testing which will prove natural immunity (not antibody testing, long term immunity such as B and T-cells) for use with any kind of potential "passport" for travel, business, etc. The latest data from the article is proving that natural immunity (which is lifelong and protects against variants) is king.

> fully vaccinated people who get infected

Emphasis added. These are a smaller percentage than unvaccinated people who get infected. So if you cherry-pick that group (who got vaccinated then got infected) and then say "look, it's the same as the unvaccinated", well that's not giving an accurate picture.

> latest data from the article is proving that natural immunity (which is lifelong and protects against variants) is king.

For the benefit of people reading this, this idea that "natural is better" does not appear to be correct:

"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/covid-19/articles/why-covid-19-vaccine...

"Why a vaccine can provide better immunity than an actual infection"

https://theconversation.com/why-a-vaccine-can-provide-better...

And one more, for future reference (as this mistake comes up from time to time)

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-you-need-to-get-v...

> There goes that "for the greater good" incentive for getting vaccinated. And people are still thinking vaccines should be mandatory?

It still seems to reduce the number of hospitalizations, thus probably preventing a health care collapse which was the original point of lockdowns.

At least, for vaccinated people, they have better outcomes the first time they come into contact with the virus. After that contact, they'll also have naturally-derived immunity. So the vaccine is a way for people to acquire their natural immunity more safely.

What you're describing is called vaccine induced immunity or artificial immunity. Natural immunity is from an infection with no vaccines involved. You know, naturally.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33129951/

What does the distinction "natural" vs. "artificial" mean to you?

I would not assume without knowledge of the specifics of the case that either of them is better.

I've provided links to the specifics of this case elsewhere.

The vaccine will pre-memorize for antibodies. That’s only one component of a natural immune response, which is wide ranging and more robust.

This is why we need nasal vaccines. The current vaccines prevent escalation but not initial replication in the nose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com