Hacker News Reader

Comment by rowland66 | Hacker News Reader

The US is absolutely shooting for herd immunity now. Its just a question of how individual members of the herd want to achieve their immunity. They can take the easy way (vaccination) or the hard way (get Covid).

View on HN

far from it https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#national-lab

Not really. Officially and unofficially they are pushing everyone to the vaccine. People who have antibodies are still getting fired from their jobs because they didn't take the vaccine. There's even talk of requiring the vaccine for some schools, regardless of prior infection status. So the US is not shooting for herd immunity through either means, but only through vaccination. Even federal employees are being required to attest to their vaccinated status without similar options for those with antibodies acquired by other means.

Pushing for near universal vaccination isn’t at odds with wanting herd immunity. Quite the opposite.

Pushing for near universal vaccination isn't at odds with wanting to maximize pharma profits. Quite the opposite.

Was it not the case that most of the vaccine producers were providing them at cost?

No. Not even close. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/vaccine-monopolies-m...

Pharma makes more money on average from covid infections in the US than vaccinations.

I'm saying that the parent's comment about pushing for herd immunity through both means is not exactly true. We are moving towards herd immunity by both methods unintentionally, but the only method being pushed is vaccination. So much so, that antibodies derived from infection are not even being counted, but rather those persons are being told they need the vaccine anyways.

It's a bit like measuring outputs rather than outcomes.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that we should be “pushing for herd immunity through both means” as in we should be pushing for vaccinations and pushing people to spread the disease as fast as possible?

I'm simply stating the claim that US is pushing for herd immunity through the choice of infection of vaccination is not true. That only vaccination is being pushed, and it is not exactly a free choice if you're going to lose your job or be denied service over it.

The vaccine results in more robust immunity.[1] That is an outcome.

[1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2103825?query=TOC

What this shows is that a single dose administered to a previously infected person provides greater antibody production than a non infected person's recieving two doses. The study also says that they are unsure if those higher levels affect a patient's ability to get sick or transmit the virus.

What I would be looking for is a study showing that prior infection has x% effectiveness as measured against a vaccine on a similar timeline.

I concur, thanks for helping folks stay informed.

GP's takeaway that "The vaccine results in more robust immunity" is completely unsupported by the provided source.

> People who have antibodies are still getting fired from their jobs because they didn't take the vaccine.

Can you cite a source for this? I see people saying it, but I haven't seen actual cases.

Has anyone, to your knowledge, explained why they might pursue such an insane misapplication of basic principles of public health?

I have a link to one below. My guess is corporate lawyers who want to limit liability without any understanding of the underlying issues.

Even my job has said that you have to be vaccinated to return (limited medical and religious exceptions). They also said it wouldn't make sense to keep the unvaccinated people working remotely, implying that they will fire people. They are not accepting antibody tests.

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/hospital-workers-prepare-t...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com