Comment by timr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by timr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I am sure you believe what you are saying, and I am also not doubting that you have some education on the topic, but I have to disagree.

Reasonable people can disagree on questions like this. But you came out of the gate insisting that I "didn't understand", which isn't true.

I understand, I just disagree that this is a disproportionate threat to our society that requires disproportionate response.

> Take for example, this study [1] demonstrating significant loss of grey matter in the brain for COVID patients, both hospitalized and non-hospitalized.

FWIW, that study is terrible. It is a statistical fishing expedition, is improperly controlled (i.e. are the changes due to Covid, or something else? You can't tell!), and the whole field of "looking at MRI for reductions in gray matter" is littered with spurious findings. Here's a comment where I go into this in much greater detail:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27927568

> As our understanding of virology evolves it is becoming more and more clear that the notion of ephemeral infections is just flat out incorrect.

It's not "flat out incorrect"...as I said before, we know that post-viral syndromes are real. This is not new information.

Having a cough or shortness of breath (by FAR the most common "long covid" symptoms) after a infection are no more an indication that the virus is lingering in your body, than leg pain after a cast is removed is an indication that you continue to have a broken leg. It takes time to heal.

That's fair, my apologies for proclaiming that you don't understand. I should have known better especially on this forum.

I see where you're coming from and I don't entirely disagree with your conclusion. The post you linked, makes a strong case for not jumping to conclusions based on grey matter studies, which I think is sound advice.

That said, I maintain that given the option to get COVID or not get COVID, I would greatly prefer the later. You similarly won't find me gaming long hours, and I make sure to get plenty of sleep. In other words, taking precautions that avoid injury is generally a good idea. And FWIW, I don't find the controls in that study to be terrible? I'm not exactly an authority of statistical analysis though, so I'll trust that this is outside my scope of understanding.

Where it sounds like we disagree most is whether or not the risk of COVID causing injury is worth something as small (or large) as asking for proof of vaccination.

It just so happens that I think asking for proof of vaccination is a relatively minor thing given the possibilities of COVID.

It's not "asking for proof of vaccination" though is it? It's denying access to restaurants, bars and so-on to those do not or will not accede to such a demand. I don't see that social apartheid as minor thing.

I had all these concerns prior to this announcement. I wouldn't say all of those are now gone. However I must point out that the vaccine, at least in the US, is not being hoarded by the elite and wealthy. It is in most urban areas being made as readily available as possible. NYC even started providing a pre-paid $100 debit card which offsets time lost from work for those who could not afford that. Perhaps I am missing it - what sort of divide is being drawn?

Please let’s not throw around words like apartheid and Holocaust in situations that don’t warrant it. Both of those are commonly used by anti-vax community to draw attention to their perceived pain at being requested to vaccinate. But they trivialise the incredible violence done to millions of people, some of the worst crimes committed by our species. Trivialising these just to score points is unconscionable.

And let me be clear, taking a shot that is safe and effective is not an unreasonable ask. Restricting access to leisure to people who are willing to take this precaution isn’t unreasonable. And no, it’s in no way comparable to some of the worst crimes committed by humans.

There's no "holocaust" in my post, please don't tar me with that brush. Apartheid, "separateness" in Afrikaans, seems entirely appropriate here. Except that there won't be vaccinated bars and non-vaccinated bars, there will just be vaccinated bars, those who refuse to show a vaccine passport will just have to go sit in the park or something.

For the record, I'm fully vaccinated, but if/when bars start demanding vaccine passports in the UK, I stop going to bars.

Don’t play semantic games. “I was just using an Afrikaans word” is a sorry excuse. We know exactly what that word means and what specific historical crimes it refers to. You are trying to evoke the memory of those crimes to make this situation look unjust. It’s exactly that behaviour that I’m requesting you not engage in.

> they will have to go sit in a park

Seems fine to me. That’s hardly the worst thing that could happen.

If you’re already vaccinated, like nearly everyone aged 30+ in the UK is and refuse to open an app on your phone to show that … I can only hope that you’re in a small minority. I guess most people just want to get on with it, rather than sticking to some principle. Im not even sure what the principle is here. Hardly anyone will be negatively affected by this mandate because nearly everyone is vaccinated.

> i stop going to bars

Cool. Parks are better for your health anyway. Good day.

Well it seems we won't agree on the substantive point, but in case you're interested, that principle is a hostility to ID cards and demands from the state to provide them in various circumstances.

And refused entry to a bar I wouldn't dream of going to the park, I head home with two bottles of decent white wine.

Good day to you too.

@jjgreen (can't reply another layer of nesting)

> that principle is a hostility to ID cards and demands from the state to provide them in various circumstances

Can't a bartender legally obligate you to show your id to prove you are old enough to drink? Your argument makes no sense.

They may refuse to serve me if I appear to be under 18 and refuse to show proof of age. I do not appear to be under 18 and have only once or twice in my life been asked for proof of age, in each case I declined, chuckled, and moved on the next pub.

Hahaha. What do you do when you’re travelling past international borders and they ask you for a passport? Do you chuckle them too?

Or let me guess, you don’t travel out of England at all so you can avoid the tyranny of passport checkers?

Or do you do the sane thing and show your passport? So then you concede that in certain cases at least the State has a compelling interest in verifying a person’s papers.

I was responding to a question about bars, not about international travel. I have no objection to showing a passport at a national boundary, I do object to doing so to buy some eggs or a glass of wine; don't you see those things as being different?

I don't see them as being different. I'll show ID when I'm asked in both places. You seem to think they're different somehow. In both cases the State is enforcing a rule for the good of society (keeping out Undesirables(TM), restricting access to alcohol from children). I think both of these are reasonable, and I'm happy to comply. You will only comply with one of these seemingly, and I can't see why.

Btw, it's beneath you to try an innocent "some eggs". We know exactly what Tesco is going to card someone for, and it's not eggs.

Then we understand each other completely.

Sure, but you can't see a reason why they should be able to check? For someone you know, besides yourself?

Apartheid was a system of separation based on essential personal characteristics. Vaccination-admission requirements would lead to separation based on behavioral choice, probability of disease transmission, and liability risk.

It seems like an inappropriate and needlessly emotive choice.

I disagree with you but upvoted for the first point about using hyperbole to further one's point. That's not acceptable and undermines those atrocities and their weight.

Both sides are doing it - left considers the entire right-wing populace as 'Fascists'. The right considers the entire left-wing populace as 'Communists' and along with it comes calling out atrocities, historical turning points, etc to further their agenda.

>that is safe and effective is not an unreasonable ask

There are more post-vax deaths recorded in VAERS for the covid vaccines over the past 6 months than for all other vaccines over the past 20 years. It's definitely not 100% safe. Sure the risk is low, but the risk of dying of covid is also quite low for a significant subset of the population. There's also absolutely zero long-term safety data on the vaccines, because it's impossible to know what the effects 3-5 years down the line of a new treatment will be when that treatment's only existed for under a year.

Go look at VAERs more carefully – not what someone on TV told you to believe it says but the actual data and its collection rules. The CDC requests reports of deaths following vaccination, even if there isn’t a suspected connection to the vaccine – they’re not going to want someone who died in a car crash but the whole point here is getting a large amount of data for analysis. The emergency authorization includes unusually broad collection because they’re trying to maximize the odds of seeing a real problem earlier.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...

“FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.”

Now, think about how broadly the vaccines have been given to hundreds of millions of people. Beyond the obvious conclusion that there is very little chance of a hidden serious complication which hadn’t yet manifested at that scale, think about how compressed that is in timing: if you take 100M people and look at that population for 6 months you’re going to see many deaths with or without vaccination. Now, remember that the elderly and other high risk populations were sensibly prioritized, so those rates will be even higher. Anyone looking at the data has to carefully adjust for things like that – it’s not just a query for the number of deaths but seeing whether it’s unusual for the cohort: are 70 year olds with pre-existing conditions dying at a different rate than they used to, not compared to a global rate covering kids to retirees?

“Apartheid” is a very serious term referring to a brutal system of racial discrimination. I think you are being extremely disrespectful to its victims by using the same term to describe people who suffer inconsequential consequences because they’re unwilling to be safe around other people.

The vaccines are available free to everyone, take minimal time to get, and extremely safe. This is an inconvenience on the level of having to wear pants on a hot day or wash your hands (which takes far more time in aggregate), and it’s only for voluntary activities which nobody needs to do to function.

Apartheid was being shut out of decent schools or jobs, packed into bad housing conditions, and being beaten if you complained about it, all enforced by a brutal prison system.

The vaccines aren’t safe for everyone. Lupus runs in my family, I already have an autoimmune condition, and I’ve already had COVID. For me, getting the vaccine would be all risk (even if it’s unlikely) with no gain.

I said “extremely safe” for that reason - there are always people who have problems with just about anything, but from a population perspective the numbers look quite good. People like you, young children, etc. are also why it’s important for the rest of us to do our part – as long as there’s so much community spread, they don’t have a safe alternative.

really? which strain/mutant of COVID did you get? There are quite some people get COVID twice, I hope you won't. One way to reduce such chance is to get the vaccine.

From https://www.lupus.org/resources/covid19-vaccine-and-lupus:

"The American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance recommends that people with autoimmune and inflammatory rheumatic disease (which includes lupus) get the vaccine unless they have an allergy to an ingredient in the vaccine."

and

"In general, you should get the vaccine even if you have already had COVID-19."

Right, and my father that has lupus absolutely got the vaccine. I, however, don't - and don't want to get lupus. It's a small risk, probably the same as getting sick normally, but it's still a risk with basically no benefit to me.

Let's be clear: the primary reason the messaging has been "previously infected people should still get the vaccine" is primarily because there are a lot of people out there that think they had COVID when they didn't. I had a friend who thought he had it twice, and then finally did get it on the third time. I had another friend think he got it back in February of last year and then actually got it late last year. They're both relatively intelligent (if not ignorant about certain things), and that's just in my little friend group.

I understand why they went down that road, but there's no reason for me to take it.

If that upsets you then you should in no circumstances watch Seinfeld's The Soup Nazi, which is a pity, one of the best episodes in my view.

Oh, don’t worry - I appreciate the difference between humorous and serious usage. The Seinfeld writers were not arguing that more people should become seriously ill because the alternative was a rather minor inconvenience.

Obviously it’s not just asking. What would be the point of asking if the response to any answer was the same?

No matter what you do, at some point you'll likely catch a SARS-CoV-2 infection (or maybe you already have). This is pretty much inevitable, just like with the other endemic common cold coronaviruses. Fortunately vaccination can greatly reduce the risk of having clinical COVID-19 symptoms.

This implies that getting the vaccine for the sake of others is far more pointless than we thought right? This would make getting the vaccine a much more personal matter, rather than a societal one.

No, it's not. Vaccinated individuals - even those who catch the virus - have far lower levels of the virus in their bodies, which means fewer chances for mutations.

> CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said recent studies had shown that those vaccinated individuals who do become infected with Covid have just as much viral load as the unvaccinated, making it possible for them to spread the virus to others.

This is why the CDC started recommending masks again.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administr...

right, so in reality, the vaccine is little more than an invisible, permanent but intrusive mask that protects yourself, and not necessarily others...

So the vaccine is for people who want to protect themselves against a serious reaction. Makes the case for vaccination far less compelling than what most people believe.

No. It's still significantly less likely that a vaccinated individual catches it in the first place, thus dramatically slowing community spread.

Seems like that is also up for debate. In this CDC study[1], 74% of cases were in the vaccinated. Probably around 69% of the population were vaccinated, meaning the fact that more than 69% of the cases were in the vaccinated suggests that the vaccinated were even more susceptible than the unvaccinated. I'm sure there are plenty of considerations with this study, but it certainly isn't glaringly obvious that vaccination reduces susceptibility.

[1]https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm...

Thank you. The majority in this thread seem to assume a higher net effect in preventing the spread through vaccination than is really the case.

Misleading/debunked: https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/142224191618851636...

Blog discussing this from shaklee3's Twitter link:

https://inguyun.medium.com/the-provincetown-outbreak-is-actu...

Are you trying to make the claim that the vaccine makes you more susceptible to catching Covid than being unvaccinated?

You prefer death to being ill?

The new data for the delta variant shows reduced protection for unvaccinated people (e.g. public benefit) from being around vaccinated people, but still shows benefit to vaccinated people.

I'm not sure I'm getting your second sentence.

What about it? To attempt to restate it: due to the emergence of the delta mutation, it is becoming less reliable to rely on the shared benefit of others being vaccinated to protect unvaccinated or immunocompromised individuals. So the risks to all populations is increasing, but not proportionally: the speed of spread to those without the personal benefit of being vaccinated is increasing much faster.

Edit: note, I’ve seen your other link, and do wonder why that was observed for that community. Here I am referring to current CDC estimates for the country and reports of hospital utilization averages overall.

Viral loads in the sinuses such that it's transmissible. This is not the same as viral loads in the body.

Still means it's comparably transmissible right?

But it does not mean the same risk of generating new variants.

This has been debunked in a way. Viral load does not translate to how well they transmit it. Vaccinated people do not transmit covid as easily.

> You similarly won't find me gaming long hours, and I make sure to get plenty of sleep. In other words, taking precautions that avoid injury is generally a good idea.

That's awesome for you, but not what we are discussing here.

What we are discussing here is you mandating that all drivers of cars gets to bed by 10PM and have a good sleep, on the chance that lack of sleep leads to bad driving which leads to higher chances of accidents, including to those who slept well last night, yet were involved in the accident.

The post I was replying to included links to studies, in which grey matter was assessed in people who play too many video games, don't sleep enough, etc. I was merely making the point that evidence of gray matter reduction in other studies, isn't reason alone to write off the one I linked. We should probably take them all seriously (assuming sound practices).

>What we are discussing here is you mandating that all drivers of cars gets to bed by 10PM and have a good sleep, on the chance that lack of sleep leads to bad driving which leads to higher chances of accidents, including to those who slept well last night, yet were involved in the accident

Not even close to the reality of the situation, but you wouldn't be the first to take a very hyperbolic approach to it.

It is indeed rhetoric, but the underlying difference of opinion that is being highlighted is the agency that is being denied.

We are not disagreeing on the benefits of a practice ( vaccination or taking a nap ).

> I understand, I just disagree that this is a disproportionate threat to our society that requires disproportionate response.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what was just being discussed. There is hard data which says COVID has a huge range of long term side effects, that’s simply a fact you can personally feel it’s an acceptable risk but nothing about your personal beliefs change the reality of long term impacts of severe viral infections.

I personally feel that the US has given people long enough to get vaccinated it’s time to open the floodgates of infection and open things up. Yes, the unvaccinated and many vaccinated will simply get very sick and die in large large numbers based on their personal choices, but such is life.

I expect most people will disagree with my personal options and that’s fine, but don’t argue about objective facts.

> There is hard data which says COVID has a huge range of long term side effects

If you can cite this "hard data", it'll be amongst the first I've ever seen.

So far, all I've seen are anecdotes and poorly controlled surveys of self-reported symptoms, the vast majority of which are mild. Reports of "cough" and "fatigue", three weeks after a respiratory illness are not exceptional, they're the expected case.

Just today, this paper was published in a Lancet journal, looking at symptom duration in a large cohort (259k) of children under 17. The most enduring symptoms? Loss of smell, headache, sore throat and fatigue. Virtually everything else fell to background in a week.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4...

If you’re happy with literally any longer term impacts here’s one documented though very rare one: “Most patients were treated with a single course of intravenous immunoglobulin, and improvement was noted within 8 weeks in most cases. GBS-associated COVID-19 appears to be an uncommon condition with similar clinical and EDx patterns to GBS before the pandemic.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32678460/

I bring it up not because it’s a significant risk, but as a demonstration that immune responses themselves are one of the risk factors associated with viral infections. Critically though there are a lot of rare conditions that individually may not be a factor but collectively are.

Hospital-acquired infections for example aren’t directly caused by covid, but start talking about 100’s of thousands of people being hospitalized and it’s a common risk.

As to that study, people under 17 aren’t even close to representative of the larger population when it comes to viral infections. It’s an important consideration but people 35-44 while generally considered low risk are literally at 100 times the risk of death as 4-14 year olds. Youthful immune systems are simply vastly better.

If we're down to talking about Guillain-Barré, then I'm definitely not concerned.

37 cases of "covid-associated" GBS falls in the category of "lighting strike risks" in life. Yeah, it can happen, but it's pretty damned rare. I'm not changing my life for it.

Also, of course...GBS is associated with at least one of the covid vaccines, itself:

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/guillain-barre-syndrome-a...

Great, you just made the first step and admitted yes there is at least one long term risk from covid infections. I picked a tiny one specifically because it was so easy.

Next, what about hospital born infections? Clearly people who aren’t in hospitals are at lower risk and clearly people are hospitalized in large numbers from Covid-19. So is that another slightly larger step you’re willing to take?

If not we can talk about tissue damage. Blood vessels for example: https://epi.ufl.edu/articles/covid-19-blood-vessel-damage.ht...

> Great, you just made the first step and admitted yes there is at least one long term risk from covid infections. I picked a tiny one specifically because it was so easy.

I've never said anything different. I'm not sure what victory you think you've won.

Some people will have long-term symptoms of Covid. Just like pretty much every other virus.

Until I see some serious, well-controlled, high-quality data that shows me that there's an unprecedented risk for a lot of people, I'm not on board with taking unprecedented actions that affect everyone.

> I've never said anything different. I'm not sure what victory you think you've won.

You just said so in this thread:

“ > A virus doesn't just enter your body, and quietly go away.

Some do not. This one does.”

No qualifications just absolute dismissal of all long term symptoms.

> Until I see some serious, well-controlled, high-quality data that shows me there’s an unprecedented risk for a lot of people

Sure, because the only evidence you can infer is that which you already agree with. Raising the bar arbitrarily isn’t science it’s a logical fallacy.

However, the exact data you’re asking for is quite simply hospitalization rates. Severe cases of covid include the normal risks of severe viral infections, but it causes severe infections at significantly higher rates thus it also causes those normal complications at much higher rates. Along with it’s own unusual risks from blood clots causing all the things blood clots cause.

> Until I see some serious, well-controlled, high-quality data that shows me that there's an unprecedented risk for a lot of people, I'm not on board with taking unprecedented actions that affect everyone.

What kind of evidence would convince you?

Bear in mind (as I'm sure you know), it's gonna be very difficult to get accurate before and afters while in the midst of a pandemic, and it's likely that this evidence will only exist if enough people don't get one of the vaccines.

For retric: is there any actual evidence this “blood vessel” damage isn’t simply repaired by the body?

I haven’t read a definitive answer to how much that blood vessel damage sticks around. Of course secondary effects of that damage such as strokes have their own long term progression.

OPs point is that many of these long term symptoms can be observed after other infections too. Influenza is also known to have longer term side effects especially in children (sound similar?)

Unrelated but important: I think a lot of people miss that this pandemic has infected millions of people, so all of the one in a million events happen with enough frequency to where you will find significant proportions of the population displaying ever symptom you could imagine "due to COVID".

We had a woman who started hemorrhaging a week into her infection. Do you think that was caused by COVID? Probably not, but I'd bet you could find a thousand people where that happened just because of the sheer size of infections.

Many long term systems are common with viral infections, however it’s important to realize their normally a function of infection severity. As such the reality that COVID causes a disproportionate number of hospitalizations means it also disproportionately increases the risk of these side effects.

>Yes, the unvaccinated and many vaccinated will simply get very sick and die in large large numbers based on their personal choices, but such is life.

Those who are unvaccinated because they're immuno-compromised, allergic or under the age of twelve aren't unvaccinated due a "personal choice."

What should be done about those folks? Are you arguing that such people have "made their choice?"

I believe the immuno compromised are safer hiding through a final huge surge than risking infection over a much longer covid swan song.

People under 12 with healthy immune systems are at extremely low risks from covid.

>People under 12 with healthy immune systems are at extremely low risks from covid.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the parents of the ~2000 children that have died COVID related deaths[0] in the US during the pandemic.

And to the parents of the children who will die before we get this scourge under control.

Perhaps you should volunteer to speak at the funerals of such children so you can assure everyone there that it's no big deal?

[0] https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/12/29/covid-2milli...

How many of those children do you think had healthy immune systems?

Kids with compromised immune systems are at risk, and there at increased risk the longer this goes on. Are you willing to talk at the funerals of all those kids?

Also, your link is: At least 172 children had died as of Dec. not 2,000.

>Are you willing to talk at the funerals of all those kids?

I'm not claiming that it's no big deal, nor am I advocating for just letting people die as you are.

Or did I somehow misunderstand your point of view?

I think you misunderstood that I expect this would kill fewer kids than our current approach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com