Delta does not appear to make children sicker | Hacker News Reader

Delta does not appear to make children sicker

reuters.com

46 pointspeteradio91 comments

Looking at this comment section, i wonder how we have gotten to this point : basically any comment gets downvoted by the other side.

This whole crisis has become so political, it's completely absurd. We should be able to quietly talk about what's proven and what's not, what's a safe precaution, what's overkill, etc. without getting too passionate about it..

On a sidenote, I don't know if twitter is a good representative of the public debate in the US, but the level of hysteria on covid has reached an absurd level: obeses american wanting to wear no mask vs psycho-mum wanting to sue the whole world in order to protect their kids...

The most amazing thing about this epidemic could end up being our reactions..

> crisis has become so political

On the plus side, you know you can relax about the crisis because it’s political and no longer a crisis. We can gather around threads like these and complain (humans are hardwired to focus on the negative) because enoughs unknown and unsettled that’s everybody has a similar level of expertise. There’s a hint of a conspiracy and town-gown divides. It’s perfect for keeping those engagement stats up!

Ironic how it's not only our own bodies destroying themselves due to COVID, but also our society overall...

"Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste"

While I agree that this has been overly politicized, I think you're attempting a moral equivalence here that is wrong.

One side is pushing 100% vaccination, which scientists say is the best way to solve this.

The other side is opposing even the most reasonable public health mandates like masking, pushing proven snake-oil like hydroxychloriquine.

> other side is opposing even the most reasonable public health mandates like masking, pushing proven snake-oil like hydroxychloriquine

They is grey area in between these extremes. Religious and medical exemptions to vaccination are widely supported. And most anti-vaxxers aren’t on the hydroxychloroquine train. Within the antivaxxer community, a subset are fine with immunity documentation provided it reflect their natural immunity.

Religious exemption is not widely supported. Many locations do not have religious exemption. And supporting documentation of covid antibodies is creating a massive moral hazard for anti-vaxxers.

Delta is infectious enough that we must assume that every unvaccinated person will get it. Telling people that they will be able to rejoin society after they're vaccinated or they get covid will result in people avoiding vaccination, which means saturating ICUs as those people get covid by happenstance or by deliberate action.

There are people awaiting critical surgeries who cannot get it because of the lack of ICU space.

Triage is a crisis right now in many infected regions Remember, if R is greater than one, and you can expect to get covid as an unvaccinated person, then that means that by staying unvaccinated you are de facto planning on giving somebody covid.

No. There's a third side pushing for the Scandinavian solution. Pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate.

A little while ago, everyone wanted to be like Norway or Denmark or Sweden -- now they pretend these countries don't exist.

Edit: of course I got shadowbanned from Hacker News for opposing the surveillance state. Curse you.

Edit 2: someone below says "The Scandinavian countries all have vaccine cards, however, and permit people to discriminate based on whether one has those." Private venues setting access rules is incomparable to a surveillance state mandating rules for every person.

"The U.S. won’t jail you if you refuse the vaccine. But you have to stay home. This is functionally identical to the Scandinavian solution, minus public buildings."

I live in Denmark (mods, who are obviously watching me, can verify from my IP) and this is a lie. In Copenhagen today, you can go to stores, malls, museums, anywhere basically without showing a pas. Why don't you shadowban this person for "misinformation" since he is lying?

The Scandinavian solution works because of it's highly functional education system. When enough percentage of people have at least a basic comprehension of logic and the scientific method the "surveillance state" as you call it does not need to strong arm common sense in its population.

Not sure what you think a shadow-ban is but I can see your comments.

The Scandinavian countries all have vaccine cards, however, and permit people to discriminate based on whether one has those.

The U.S. won’t jail you if you refuse the vaccine. But you have to stay home. This is functionally identical to the Scandinavian solution, minus public buildings and minus a federal vaccine certificate.

Are you saying US and Scandinavia are the same but different? The US won’t jail you unless you disobey?

> US won’t jail you unless you disobey?

They’re the same as in nobody is forced to get the vaccine. Nobody will be threatened with state violence for not getting the shot. They’re just barred from a lot of facilities for the choice they made. We do similarly for children whose parents refuse to give them measles shots.

Enforcement, naturally, varies. In Manhattan, I’m constantly asked for card and ID. In Long Island, it never happened.

So you are walking down the street and the cops say “papers please” and you whip them out with the pride of someone protecting the homeland, because you have permission to walk around?

In case anyone is having trouble viewing this directly on reuters: https://www.yahoo.com/news/delta-does-not-appear-children-18...

Here are the referenced studies this article is based on:

"Anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain antibody evolution after mRNA vaccination"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04060-7

"Illness characteristics of COVID-19 in children infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant"

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.06.21264467v...

>"Few children presented to hospital, and long illness duration was uncommon, with either variant. Interpretation COVID-19 in UK school-aged children due to SARSCoV2 Delta strain B.1.617.2 resembles illness due to the Alpha variant B.1.1.7., with short duration and similar symptom burden."

Isn't the bigger concern that kids can pass it on to adults who do get sicker?

Double-whammy article, second title: Secondary immune response stronger after infection than after shot

The problem with infection to provide immunity is its variability, not its strength.

It's kind of moot anyways, infection + vaccine is better than just an infection.

What do you mean the variability?

> researchers looking at SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in people who had recovered found that the difference between the highest and lowest levels varied by a factor of over 1,000.

Citations in: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/antibody-testing-sug...

The average immune response to infection is good. But for some it's great and for others it is poor.

Answer is in the post you reply to. Might want to reread.

No, according to Cleveland Clinic's study, vaccine adds no benefit to those with natural immunity.

https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210608/No-point-vacc...

That study is seriously out of date, as it addresses the optimal strategy to prioritize vaccinations when the vaccines are scarce. That's still, sadly, a major concern in many parts of the world, but not so much in the US and Europe.

Since then, there's solid science[1] that hybrid immunity is significantly better than either vaccine-induced or disease-induced. So taking the vaccine is clearly the better choice whether you've been infected or not.

[1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj2258

Even though all the science points to infection being better than vaccination at creating immune response, it's not accepted as an alternative. Ridiculous IMO.

FWIW, no, all the science does not point to an infection being better than a vaccine.

A well cited article that discusses this: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...

"Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination," the authors concluded.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

From the article :')

I feel like you cherry picked the one study that fits your bias, and ignored the dozen others which do not.

Here’s a direct counter from one of the other studies:

> The CDC researchers found that people previously infected but unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who were previously infected and fully vaccinated.

And here’s the conclusion of the article:

Overall, the variable immune responses to infection, lower neutralization against delta, and the clear boost in protection from a very safe, highly effective vaccine make a strong argument for vaccinating the recovered.

"> The CDC researchers found that people previously infected but unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who were previously infected and fully vaccinated."

That's not comparing vaccine vs natural immunity. That's comparing vaccine + natural immunity to natural immunity alone. Not what the question is, even though the framing of the study implies otherwards.

You're right, which is a direct counter to the parent comment of "there's no benefit to getting the vaccine if you've had covid".

Which I never stated

Yes, an article discussing how different studies show different results also quotes authors of studies that show a negative result, what a surprise... not quite the "gotcha" you suggest it is. It also references studies in the other direction, that's the point of that article.

If the immune response is comparable to that of a fully vaccinated person, we should be issuing "immunization cards" to people who have recovered.

The goal is to control the disease, not the people.

Succinct way of describing it there, especially if prior infection is even stronger than the vaccine.

Unfortunately, vaccine passports appear to be used more as a punishment for not complying than being about disease control.

Edit - Incredible how you can be downvoted for laying out crystal clear logic there. Covid, eh!

That makes no sense logistically - the test to accurately measure that the people indeed have the antibodies in sufficient strength is more expensive than the vaccine - and now you have to distribute both instead of just one. It's not worth it.

Comments like these oversimplify the immune system. Your real-world protection from illness isn't based solely on the amount of neutralizing antibodies that are circulating in your veins as a result of either infection or vaccination.

It would not be efficient for the immune system to keep antibodies circulating in large numbers for every pathogen you've ever been exposed to. Instead, the immune system generates longer-lasting memory T and B cells, which allow it to recognize pathogens it has been exposed to in the past and more quickly produce antibodies to fight them if necessary.

Most individuals who have been vaccinated or recovered from infection will have protection against SARS-CoV-2 even after the antibodies produced immediately following vaccination or infection have waned and become undetectable.

The evidence to date suggests that the long-lasting memory T and B cell responses are stronger and broader in individuals who have recovered from natural infection, while those who have been vaccinated have higher levels of neutralizing antibodies that wane quickly.

Ultimately, whether you're talking about vaccination or natural infection, the problem with your statement "the test to accurately measure that the people indeed have the antibodies in sufficient strength" is that there is no such test because there is no validated model to correlate titers of neutralizing antibodies to protection against infection and illness.

> the test to accurately measure that the people indeed have the antibodies in sufficient strength is more expensive than the vaccine

Let them pay for it, and make its validity valid for only as long as that rest is predictive. If they can’t get it due to distribution issues, they can do the same thing people who refuse their standard vaccines do—stay away from (and be let be by) others.

Yes you can get natural immunity from COVID. You can also get dead, or permanent brain or lung damage.

Get the shots.

Or you can get a heart defect from the shots. Or blood clots.

So there's no categorical "take the shot" or "dont take the shot". It's your personal risk profile that should be the deciding factor. Not some troll on the internet/tv telling you what to do.

Heart issues occur at a rate of 1 in 49 million. AKA, you’re about 50x more likely to be hit by lightning at 1 in 1 million odds.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027e2.htm

To turn this probability into dice rolls, roll 10d6, and look to get all 1’s.

It’s still not 0. So it’s an unnecessary risk.

So is walking out of your house. Driving a car. Taking public transportation.

So is living.

If the vaccine causes those symptoms, the actual virus will likely, too. And worse.

You are far more likely to get heart problems that stem from systemic inflammation from an infection like COVID than a vaccination. But you already knew that, you just choose to harp on an opposing viewpoint.

In literally billions of vaccines we have only thousands of side effect deaths.

On the other hand in hundreds of millions of Covid cases we have millions of deaths.

All known cases of post vaccine myocarditis were mild and did not lead to permanent damage.

Also, myocarditis can also be caused byviral infections. We don't know the exact numbers, because it is hard to diagnose myocarditis if the person is already sick with something else at the same time. However, there is the hypothesis that the risk might be the same for people who get a covid infection, or perhaps even higher.

The same thing also applies to blood clots.

> It's your personal risk profile that should be the deciding factor.

Health agencies all around the world all agree over this. The great benefits of vaccination outweigh the minuscle risks.

Yes, but if you catch covid and survive it, you should do the right thing and still get vaccinated against it, because that is more betterer, according to the the completely unbiased media that they happen to be injecting with cash while they otherwise circle the drain.

This is just standard anti-vax bullshit.

Why? Please elaborate why you consider this bullshit. I mean making personal decisions based on personal risk is seldom considered "bullshit". Why is it bullshit in this case? Because the TV says so?

Because if you get needlessly infected, you are almost sure to infect others. You choices impact other people.

Framing it as a personal choice is selfish and disingenuous. It is no more personal choice than dumping toxic waste into a river or firing a gun in random direction in public.

There are people who legitimately can't get vaccinated for medical reasons - but those are rarely the ones using the personal choice argument, are they?

But vaccinated still spread the virus. So it’s just personal risk to not get vaccinated.

It’s bullshit because the risk for heart complications is higher if you get COVID than if you get the shot. This is simple math.

But those simple math calculations don’t factor in the chance of getting corona in the first place. 2 years in the pandemic and I only know 3 people who got corona.

People act as if it was 100% certain one would get corona.

The Delta variant is sufficiently contagious that all of us can expect to be exposed multiple times in our lives. Just like what typically happens with the other endemic coronaviruses.

https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...

Only a subset of those infected will experience clinically significant symptoms. Probably more than 3 of your acquaintances have had it but didn't even know it, maybe just felt a little tired for a few days.

So let's assume you know 10000 people. COVID risk of death is 1 in 100. The chance you'll be next and die is 1 per 1M. As mentioned above the chance of blood clots from the vaccines is about 1 per 40M.

Not an argument

Is anyone seriously arguing both against the vaccine and pro infection?

People are just saying (and science confirms) that previously infected shouldn't be discriminated against or forced to vaccinate.

There have been literal COVID parties as anti-vaxxers try to get immunity the natural way.

The moral hazard of legitimizing natural immunity is very real. Yes the biological science shows that natural antibodies work well, but social science tells us what dumb people will do it that's supported as a solution.

There are a literally people with animals in their rectum. People do strange things. Your dubious moral hazard degrades by the day as more and more people cross the covid threshold with or without intention.

> The moral hazard of legitimizing natural immunity is very real.

It hasn’t for other vaccines/diseases. For example when I went back to grad school and didn’t have a shot record they they tested me for anitibodies instead of using more vaccines. I was low on MMR so got a booster but didn’t need varicella and various others. No big deal.

The natural antibodies work well _if you get them_.

That need you to be infected badly enough your body created the long-term ones (so not complete asymptomatic), and also not badly enough you die or get long covid (which by the way some measure at 50 % infected having in some form - but it's hard to say especially since long covid is not well defined).

Which while might theoretically be true for individuals, it is too unreliable to make a policy of it.

EDIT: but yes, you're right, people (whether they are bad actors spreading misinformation willingly or stupid plague rats believing them) will catch on that and claim they don't need the vaccine then.

Just like they caught on "vaccinated people can still get covid!" - sure they can, it is just two orders of magnitude less likely.

Or heart inflammation.

https://www.stephenharrodbuhner.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/...

Well yeah, the problem with Delta is that it's so infectious that the tiny fraction of kids that face real risk is still a huge number as an absolute value.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/144680575939271...

> Now a top trending killer in kids 5-14: #DeltaVariant.

> Surging from near 0% in June to now ~8% of deaths in kids 5-14 are #COVID19 in September.

Some of those kids can get the shots, and should.

I'd need to see the data backing that figure. I'm pretty sure it's percentage of some subset of deaths related to respiratory disease in particular rather than all causes of deaths like gun shots etc. Unfortunately thats a deeply misleading statistic in that context because it says that Covid is only a small portion of all respiratory related illness among children and yet you are using it in the reverse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com