Comment by ohyes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ohyes | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You had the vaccine so you recovered quickly, if you didn’t have the vaccine you might not have recovered and needed hospitalization.

I mean, the alternative where you don’t get the vaccine includes much higher risk of lung damage, nervous system damage and total organ failure.

I think even if there was data to back this up (that somehow vaccine gives less protection than a real infection…), getting a booster every year or 6 months is well worth it given what happens with an unvaccinated covid infection. People do seem to get reinfected and die after already having it once.

I don’t think that your model of how vaccines work really makes sense. I mean, the point is to prime your immune system with antibodies to something similar but relatively harmless so you can fight off the disease immediately rather than waiting for it to get a strong foothold… in a way that is safe.

Saying it is less effective than getting sick is like totaling your car to avoid regular maintenance.

> I don’t think that your model of how vaccines work really makes sense.

I believe OP is referencing "Original antigenic sin" [0].

"This leaves the immune system "trapped" by the first response it has made to each antigen, and unable to mount potentially more effective responses during subsequent infections."

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin

If this was true vaccines would be ineffective against Delta and other mutated variants, but it turns out the vast, vast majority of cases that are severe or result in death are among the unvaccinated.

This is just bad science and isn't supported by real-world outcomes.

Also adaptation of antibodies evidently works, as cross-vaccination schemes improve response rates. E.g. 2 doses Moderna, then 1 dose BionTech and vice versa, is better than 3 doses of the same for either one.

https://twitter.com/Karl_Lauterbach/status/14516437827855564...

Doesn’t make sense. If the infection continues the immune system will generate new antibodies and responses. After all it’s a new thing not seen before.

The linked article both describes the mechanism and has plenty of recent references observing and studying the effect whether or not you think it makes sense.

The general mechanism is that recognition of the antigen by memory B cells produces a response that also inhibits (non-memory) B cells from reacting to the antigen. So when the antigen has drifted enough that memory B cells still recognize it, but the antibodies are less effective then at that point B cells are actively inhibited by the memory B cells so new and retargeted antibodies are not produced.

So, down the line, you might be more susceptible to a similar mutation. (Based on no hard evidence for this particular virus).

(Social media reports aren’t exactly reliable and everything seems to indicate that your chances of serious complications are worse without a vaccine).

Right now, there’s a deadly virus going around and there might not be a “later” for me if I don’t get the vaccine. I think I’ll take my chances with the vaccine. It seems like a no brainer to me.

There is hard evidence. I’m on mobile and can’t look well now, but I encourage you to look!

Eventually you clear the infection in most cases. How do you think that happens?

It happens the same way. This is just talking about rates. When naive B cells see that existing antibodies are already present on the virus they take that as a signal that memory B cells already exist and the search for new antibodies is called off. So there's a balance between the quantity of virus, how quickly the virus replicates, quantity of antibodies, how well the antibodies bind to the virus, and how many bound antibodies are needed on a virus to suppress the naive B cell response. Basically, if binding becomes less efficient you'd expect the viral load to have to get higher before naive B cells get significantly involved. And in fact the infection may just be cleared without involving naive B cells, but just take a bit longer. It seems unlikely that would be worse than not being vaccinated, but I'm sure the devils are in the details of all these factors.

> When naive B cells see that existing antibodies are already present

I don't think this is how this works.

They "see" antibodies sticking to a target, as successful antibodies are presented for replication and refinement. This implies a functional response. If the vaccine antibodies wouldn't work on a new strain, the B cells wouldn't recognize them as suitable candidates.

I thought about this a bit more… there’s no reason this wouldn’t apply to a secondary infection with a different strain of covid is there? I don’t see what’s special about the vaccine that would make this effect noticeably worse than simply being infected twice.

Except for many cohorts, the overwhelming — near certain — odds are that they’d be fine after contracting COVID.

In which case….why care which order you did things in, by your logic? If the consequences are low the decision is academic.

(I don’t agree: I think there is risk of chronic damage that doesn’t appear as acute symptoms)

Why draw a deadly roulette ticket?

Because this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/11/04/fed...

despite this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepqvdXoA2E&feature=youtu.be

Oops, you can't watch that. Senators holding an expert panel is "dangerous misinformation". Here you go:

https://rumble.com/vokrf7-sen.-johnson-expert-panel-on-feder...

Just so it is clear to you, the Forbes article you link is an opinion piece.

Just so it's clear to you, there are facts in opinion piece. Opinion pieces are often someone's opinion on existing facts.

Premised on the undisputed fact that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for adverse reactions, leaving the victim with no remedy.

Seems like the vaccine is the deadly roulette ticket: risk of fatal bloodclotting every time a new vaccine is administered while ironically being at a higher risk against new, potentially more dangerous, mutations compared to people who recovered from a Covid infection naturally. I guess it comes down how much you trust pharmaceutical companies having the payday of a lifetime and politicians on a power trip.

To be clear, there is no evidence for any of your claims.

Risk of blood clotting / thromosis (VIIT) with adenovirus vector and Peri / Myocarditis with mRNA based are known risks, even if extremely rare overall (but worrying for specific groups; <50 females and <30 males respectively)

You should compare with risk of clotting vs covid disease.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com