Hacker News Reader

Comment by rwcarlsen | Hacker News Reader

This is actually false and contradicts findings from several very reputable and large studies. See e.g. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

View on HN

> Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Did you read your own link?

Yes - infected+vaccinated is more protected than infected. But infected is way more protected than vaccinated only. If your position is that everyone should meet the highest standard of infected+vaccinated - which is only marginally better than just being infected - then we should be mandating mandatory covid infection. But if your position is that vaccination alone provides acceptable protection, then infection alone already far far surpasses that in both lasting immunity and total efficacy.

[edit] Here is an excerpt from their conclusion:

"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity."

> But infected is way more protected than vaccinated only.

For the Pfizer vaccine, against the Delta variant specifically.

> If your position is that everyone should meet the highest standard of infected+vaccinated - which is only marginally better than just being infected - then we should be mandating mandatory covid infection. But if your position is that vaccination alone provides acceptable protection, then infection alone already far far surpasses that in both lasting immunity and total efficacy.

This is an absurd argument to make. There's no ethical argument to infect people. And the absolute material difference between vaccinated and natural immunity is literally dozens out of a population of over 600,000. Natural immunity might be "way more protected" but that's speaking in relative terms.

I agree it's absurd - which is why I wasn't sure why it sounded like you were making it. So since we established natural immunity is superior - why is it being ignored? Apparently it's not part of _the_ science.

See my original comment: proving natural immunity requires money, the testing is slow, and it's still less good than simply also getting the shot. And even with natural immunity, it's only somewhat better in some cases as shown by a small number of studies. OR logic is not subtractive to the social and political problem, it's additive.

Why is it absurd to believe in natural immunity and still hold folks accountable for using the zero-cost, (virtually) zero risk option?

Everyone shouldn't be required to meet the highest standard of protection. Everyone should be required to meet the highest standard of protection that can be achieved with neglible risks.

COVID infection has significant risks that rule it out as a medical intervention, even it is sometimes beneficial. Vaccination is virtually risk-free.

But what about people that have already engaged and benefited from that risk? For many of those people, the vaccine risk is not so negligible compared to the additional benefit they gain from any (much smaller) immune boost they might get. Also, how is policy making "following _the_ science" if it doesn't even acknowledge the superiority of natural immunity. The least they could do is own their disregard and say - we're ignoring some science for [reasons] instead of simply demonizing a large fraction of the population as bigoted selfish backward uneducated scum - which is my interpretation of POTUS declaring war on 20% of Americans - a so called "pandemic of the unvaccinated" in his own words (or whoever wrote the speech).

Vaccination has minimal risk and substantially increases immunity even for people who have been infected.

It is following the science to make them get vaccinated.

Mandating vaccination and ignoring naturally acquired immunity is selectively following the science. It is deceitful and reckless to ignore natural immunity and demonize the unvaccinated.

They aren't ignoring naturally acquired immunity. Vaccination strengthens immunity even for people who have been previously infected.

Yes, they are ignoring naturally acquired immunity. Having acquired natural immunity does not exempt an individual from the requirement to vaccinate.

So, in what way are they not ignoring naturally acquired immunity?

The vaccine increases immunity even for people who have already been infected.

If everyone gets vaccinated, spread will be lower than if only people who have not already been infected get vaccinated.

Natural immunity provides a stronger immune response than vaccination alone. So, there is a large group of people that have better immunity than any vaccine can give. But, they must still get vaccinated because the president says so? That is some fucked logic.

If all natural immunity people are required to get the vaccine because it gives them better immunity than they already had then by that same logic we should require all vaccinated people to get infected with COVID. Then everybody has the same immunity level.

Infecting someone with a deadly disease is not an ethical medical intervention. Vaccination is.

The requirement isn't to achieve the maximum level of immunity that is possible. It is to achieve the maximum level of immunity that is possible without incurring significant risk.

Natural immunity is better than the vaccine. There is a risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine. You are arguing that people who already have superior immunity take additional risk. This is as unethical as demanding the vaccinated get infected with COVID.

Nonsense. The risk from the vaccine is that you get a headache for a day. The risk from getting infected is that you die.

A headache isnt even listed as an adverse reaction. Please base your argument in fact. Getting the vaccine is not risk free and can rarely result in death. The chance of a natural immunity person getting COVID again and dying is lower than a vaccinated person.

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

I read their link:

> This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.

This is not published yet -- not even pass peer review... In graduate schools professors often give two papers stating contradictory conclusions. Gotta to find which one is correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com