Hacker News Reader

Comment by kiba | Hacker News Reader

To develop natural immunity, you would need to get infected with the virus, no? That's considerably more risky than getting the vaccine.

If you do get infected with the virus after vaccination, wouldn't you also develop natural immunity?

View on HN

I think the worry with natural infection is if the timing is such to provide durable immunity. But it’s not like the vaccines have had 5 years of trials to determine the best wait between the 2 and 3 doses so kind of a moot point.

Why 5 years? Why not 1? Why not 50? What's so special to people about 5 years? I keep hearing people say "it hasn't been tested long enough" followed by "I'd take it in about 5 to 10 years" which is a HUGE difference. Is it just that "time has passed", because a year has passed since the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was first given to test subjects. But I guess it's up to people - their body, their choice.

Even though we live in what is commonly referred to as a "society". We agree to live by certain rules and norms that allow us to coexist. There is a faction of fools out there who resist being a part of society, but claim all of its privileges. These are sub-human individuals who just seek some form of control over others. That has to stop.

>Why 5 years? Why not 1? Why not 50? What's so special to people about 5 years?

Clinical trials are conducted over many years (rather than just 1) for historical safety reasons[1]

>There is a faction of fools out there who resist being a part of society, but claim all of its privileges. These are sub-human individuals

This is hate speech, especially considering the disproportionate rates of black and hispanic people who are unvaccinated.

[1]https://www.brightfocus.org/clinical-trials/how-clinical-tri...

> This is hate speech, especially considering the disproportionate rates of black and hispanic people who are unvaccinated.

It is not. Black & hispanic people are vaccinated at lower rates than white people mostly due to access issues, not refusal to get the vaccine. One of those access issues is, in fact, that they are disproportionately members of a part of society we've demanded to take a lot of risk: essential workers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/26/9899620...

That's right, vaccine doesn't prevent you from getting the virus so if you get it you'd then amount an immune response of some sort which is on top of the one provided by the vaccine.

Or that goes to "fill up" again the immunity lost due to the time which went by since the vaccination.

There are also inactivated-virus covid-19 vaccines [0] in trials that one could expect to impart more broad-based immunity than the mrna vaccines which are designed to target only one part of the virus.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinovac#COVID-19_vaccine_devel...

If you got Covid before vaccines were available that risk assessment is irrelevant.

If you get COVID after vaccination, your immune system may not learn how to fight COVID-19 as well, because the vaccine is present and doing something.

The vaccine isn't doing anything in your body to fight COVID-19 infection actively. Your immune system is doing the fighting regardless.

That is not what I said.

“ your immune system may not learn how to fight COVID-19 as well, because the vaccine is present and doing something.”

But the vaccine being present isn't "doing something". The thing it did has already happened.

If you develop covid-19 symptomatic disease after vaccination, you will likely still get natural immunity.

The immune system "doing something" is why you feel sick.

The vaccine fighting the virus doesn't make you feel sick because it's just antibodies clumping on virus particles, preventing them from infecting cells.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com