Hacker News Reader

Comment by tstrimple | Hacker News Reader

You're more than twice as likely to be reinfected if you have immunity through previous infection. Vaccine protection is significantly better.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210811/COVID-19-vaccines...

View on HN

I seriously doubt this is correct.

Covid has 3 protein markers. After you get infected your antibodies will continue to recognise all three.

However the vaccines don't have all three, so the antibodies generated are not as all encompassing as they would be if you contracted Covid.

Therefore, if it doesn't kill you, having Covid puts you in a better position to fight off variants.

At least that's how I understand it from all the articles I read about the various vaccines, that said, IANAD, so don't take this post as medical advice.

Speculation from a random stranger on the internet, or a study showing results? I'll take the study with the results.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...

After this legitimation crisis, sorry, but articulate strangers are often the best way to "read the headlines upside down" - a necessary fact of life now.

This study talks about reinfection for vaccinated patients and not about reinfection of unvaccinated patients. This does not seem to contradict the parent comment.

You might want to look at the multiple peer reviewed studies I posted in a different reply, because you are spreading misinformation.

There is a big public health motivation (completely understandable) for why they don't talk much about natural immunity.

A lot of people, my lovable but dumb as a rock sister included, who had some symptoms after socializing with people who end up testing positive, who never got the test themselves. They just assume they were infected. We definitely don't want these people to skip the vaccines. But again, managing the behavior of morons is a separate activity from determining the actual truth of the matter.

You are correct. Both links that he posted are talking about reinfection. So prior infection + vaccine > infection (no vaccine) > vaccine only > no infection/no vaccine.

among people who were previously infected

This says that a combination of having been infected and vaccinated is better than just having been infected.

Who is the one linking sketchy sources and implying people do their own research, now?

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1420130581426364416.html

There are multiple longitudinal studies with large cohorts whose conclusions completely disagree.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v...

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341241

The meta-conclusion is that natural immunity is at least as effective as the Pfizer/Moderna, and more protective than the J&J vaccine.

There isn't a collection of billion dollar multi-national pharma companies pushing studies on natural immunity, nor are public health experts talking about it, creating a false impression in the mind of the public.

Trust me, I got the "redneck vaccine" in February, before I was eligible for the real vaccines. I still haven't recovered all of my sense of smell, and don't recommend it. That being said, I am also at increased risk of complications from the vaccine due to having a sky-high level of antibodies in my blood according to my doctor. I visit him monthly, and at his recommendation I will be getting the shot as soon as the antibodies wane.

Edit: Here is clinical evidence of worse side effects for previously infected individuals getting vaccinated

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Really obnoxious that my comment is getting downvoted with no rebuttals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com