Hacker News Reader

Comment by pibechorro | Hacker News Reader

All true, but this was not what was sold to the general public. Had people been informed that the latest vaccines against COVID-19 behaved similarly to rhe seasonal shots people get for regular flue season, a vast majority of the public would have opted out, as they do with the seasonal versions. This was further compounded by the aggressive dismissal and censorship of natural immunity and preventive care (good diet, exercise, vitamins, etc). We are here today because the obvious was politicized.

View on HN

> All true, but this was not what was sold to the general public.

Fauci was prepping everyone for vaccines with a 50% VE against infection back in late 2020 before the results of the phase 3 trials were produced.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/07/fauci-says-covid-19-vaccine-ma...

> “The chances of it being 98 percent effective is not great,” Fauci, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said at a Q&A with the Brown University School of Public Health in Rhode Island, according to CNBC.

> Instead, Fauci said, scientists are hoping for a vaccine that is 75 percent effective — but even a 50 or 60 percent success rate would be considered a win.

At the same time though we're still at >90% VE against severe disease and hospitalization through the persistence of T-cell immunity, but that just doesn't protect against initial infection since T-cells take a few days to get going in response to an infection. The vaccines can be largely credited with most of the "milder" Omicron wave keeping the infection-hospitalization-rate much lower.

So who exactly "sold" these ideas about the vaccines to the general public? Because it wasn't the leading public health expert not the pandemic.

How much did the public hear what it wanted to hear from media sources and self-appointed twitter experts?

Here is Fauci claiming the vaccines would result in herd immunity:

> “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Fauci told the Times. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

It sure sounds like he was intentionally feeding us false hope.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/531611-fauci-herd-immu...

That was over a year ago, just before the Delta variant was discovered. Since Delta became prevalent, there has been little talk of herd immunity.

Yeah the Delta variant is the only one that has really mattered at all.

That was something that literally nobody expected, not even epidemiologists or virologists. Goodbye herd immunity argument entirely. Everyone catches SARS-CoV-2 sooner or later.

The quote I posted was contemporaneous with the quote from the parent comment, which claims Fauci prepped us for 50% VE but he later claimed herd immunity was possible which afaik implies far greater than 50% VE.

The parent comment asked "who sold these ideas [that vaccines prevent transmission] to the general public?" From the quote I posted, it certainly seems like Fauci did.

Is there something I'm missing here?

From above: "Instead, Fauci said, scientists are hoping for a vaccine that is 75 percent effective — but even a 50 or 60 percent success rate would be considered a win."

The number 50 was mentioned in passing, but it doesn't sound like he was predicting any specific efficacy number, only that it would not be as high as the rosy 90%+ that was shown by some data. To me, parsing these words is a little nit-picky, since we are talking about a 2 year period during which multiple new and unexpected strains have become dominant, and vast amounts of new clinical data have been published.

The claim that herd immunity is possible seems to imply some base efficacy rate, the actual value of which I agree is not important here. (Although maybe it doesn't. I really don't know.)

And it's true that the quotes come from early on in the pandemic.

However, the claim that it was randos on Twitter and not the experts - at any time - who purveyed the idea that the Covid vaccines would significantly prevent transmission - unlike flu vaccines - is contradicted by the quote from Fauci that I posted in response to the question: "who sold these ideas to the public?"

> Had people been informed that the latest vaccines against COVID-19 behaved similarly to rhe seasonal shots people get for regular flue season, a vast majority of the public would have opted out, as they do with the seasonal versions.

We’re people informed differently? I don’t remember ever being under the impression that the COVID vaccine would provide immunity forever, or even longer than a year.

Also, incidentally, like 40-50% of American adults get the flu vaccine. For people aged 65+ it’s like 60-70%. That’s lower than the rates of COVID vaccinations, but not massively lower (especially considering that the choice to get the flu vaccine is not utilized as a signal of political group membership).

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-07-21/ap-...

> BIDEN: “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” — town hall.

Personal anecdata(source: had covid-infected roommate, and close contact with someone who tested positive a day later): I got boosted 2 weeks before my roommate got covid, I took no precautions and didn't get sick. The second contact was the beginning of this week and didn't get sick. As far as I'm concerned, vaccines have kept me from getting covid in known-risky environments.

I was under the impression that the vaccine would prevent infection in most people, start to wear off, and that a booster once a year for the next few years would get us to herd immunity.

I recall that being a pretty common expectation.

Also many people fail to seroconvert after natural infection:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042-f2

And the virus contains immune evasion genes like ORF8 which evade humoral immunity responses by downregulating MHC-I:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/23/e2024202118

Nobody in their right mind would produce a vaccine with ORF8 in it since it defeats the whole purpose of stimulating T-cell and B-cell recognition.

There's good reasons why natural immunity has been downplayed.

I'm sorry. Can you clarify what you are saying?

> aggressive dismissal and censorship of natural immunity

The 'natural immunity' argument never makes sense if you think about it. You're comparing the chances of a SECOND covid infection of an unvaccinated person to a vaccinated person's first infection. If you compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated people and their chances of their first and second covid infections, the vaccinated person wins in both cases.

Also, the first infection is the riskiest one. So going through the riskiest infection to get immunity for a second, less risky infection doesn't really make sense.

If it's about whether someone who had covid already should count as being vaccinated, maybe. But that also risks incentivizing people catching covid on purpose instead of taking the vaccine.

I would encourage everyone eligible to protect themselves by getting vaccinated, but there were millions of people who got infected before there were any vaccines available. The vast majority of those recovered patients now have durable cellular immunity which will usually protect them against severe symptoms in subsequent reinfections.

https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/

And if one's natural immunity came from a previous coronavirus infection from 10 year ago?

There is such a thing as cross reactive immunity. Look at the diamond princess cruise ship. They were locked in close quarters sharing a ventilation system for 2 weeks and only 20% of the guests tested positive.

The most fascinating part is how none of this was really unexpected; Too many people forgot how this is already SARS-CoV-*2*

We had over a decade to find vaccines for the original SARS-CoV, and in over that decade we did not manage to find anything long-lasting [0]. A whole lot of problems SARS-CoV vaccines had, seem to also exist for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

[0] https://sci-hub.ru/10.1080/17460441.2019.1581171

> the aggressive dismissal and censorship of natural immunity

who agressively dismissed this?

Your friendly neighborhood fact checkers who suppress virtually anything which could justify opposition to vaccine mandates. Including news media.

I angrily dismiss it. It's a nonverifiable bullshit excuse to avoid a needle prick. Tests have some error, it's unclear if you got a sufficient dose, spaced exposures are better, the vaccine has shown better variant resilience, choose your reasons. If you haven't gotten a vaccine, I don't care if you've had COVID or not. Either way you should get a shot.

It might be different if there were any cost to it. But there isn't. So invariably the people bitching about natural immunity are just doing it to make a point, usually political.

I agree people should get the shot. It's so amazingly clear that it's effective at helping your immune system to fight the virus quicker.

But the CDC did announce that since delta people who recovered from an infection have better immune response than those who are only vaccinated. I asked the OP to clarify because there is false information out there that this fact is being suppressed "aggressively" when in fact the CDC announced it!

Of course people who get multiple exposures (vaccines, boosters, cases) have a better immune response. That's separate from whether they have a better experience - sometimes COVID causes damage to organs that is cumulative between cases for instance.

The point isn't that infection carries no immune benefits. It's that vaccines always carry immune benefits so everyone should be forced to get one (very rare cases of immune system maladies aside).

I do actually support vaccine mandates in emergencies such as these. I don't know what I said that makes you think otherwise.

> I do actually support vaccine mandates in emergencies such as these. I don't know what I said that makes you think otherwise.

Sure, happy to explain my reasoning. You said "I agree people should get the shot." Unfortunately, a lot of times that phrase is followed, either explicitly or based on context with the rest of the conversion, by "but it's their choice and I oppose mandates". The use of "should" that people use for "should eat right" not "should wear a seatbelt". It's gotten to the point that if I see such a phrase without specifying something like "everyone should get vaccinated", I assume it's an anti-mandate (and often antivaxer)

I hope our interaction has appropriately updated our priors ;)

So, not only did you not RTFA (which mentions lasting natural immunity up through 450 days so far), you refuse to believe any science that isn't suiting your political agenda. You should not have the power to require anyone to get an unnecessary medical treatment, and neither should the government.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...

It mentions data on 450 days not "hey, you're totally immune for 450 days". And obviously some people who are naturally infected will be immune forever. Some people.

But even if we knew natural infection prevented future infections in all (which it doesn't, people get double or triple infected), it still wouldn't make sense. (For if it leaves you open to reinfection, see spaced exposure, initial viral load, etc.) Because we don't have the records to corroborate everyone's claims they were infected. And, a lot of the people who would claim to have already been infected I have little trust in to be honest, let alone the difficulty of self-diagnosing.

There's no cost to getting the damn shot, so what's the fucking problem with requiring it?

You make an impassioned and personally attacking me case that natural immunity should exempt you, but why not get the vaccine?

Maybe someone just doesn’t feel like getting the vaccine. That’s 100% reason enough, it’s not your decision to make.

> So invariably the people bitching about natural immunity are just doing it to make a point, usually political.

Bodily autonomy is kind of an important topic, is it not? Why should some asshole force me to get an unnecessary medical procedure for a common respiratory virus I already had in order to work or enter many places of business? Why does the government get to force this medical procedure on me?

You can't argue for bodily autonomy and simultaneously support vaccination passports and things like that. I mean you can, but it makes your argument a whole lot weaker.

Every single company and policy maker who is requiring vaccination without considering prior infection.

Rubbish. The CDC advises all policy on this matter in the US and they publicly published that infection and recovery from Delta and subsequent variants gives a stronger immune response than vaccination alone.

It's trivial to find this information.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cdc+natural+immunity&t=brave&iar=n...

First result:

> The CDC is finally recognizing 'natural immunity' — legislators should follow suit

> The Hill on MSN.com|1 day ago

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-cdc-is-finally-...

This just confirms their point, the vaccine passports in the US don't have any allowances for natural immunity - it's vaccine or nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com