5 ms·

This article reinforces that herd immunity between young healthy people would have been the best solution. Our old are going to get sick from vaccines, so the

This article reinforces that herd immunity between young healthy people would have been the best solution. Our old are going to get sick from vaccines, so the young are going to get it anyway. Next year under 50 year olds will line up for their vaccine. Meanwhile 1.5 years worth of old, obese, and sick people will have died from coronavirus. Wouldn't it have been better if healthy kids and adults caught it in q2 2020? (Please no ancedotes of a sick 5 year old child dying from "coronavirus", statistics are necessary when discussing billions)

glotgizmo 6y ago
(In the UK) Young healthy adults and kids live with old/unhealthy/frail parents due to the enormous financial difficulty of leaving home.
- jedimastert 6y ago
  And in the US too
henearkr 6y ago
This is a virus with bad long-term effects on the body. Not a good idea to catch it just to get immune.
- rimliu 6y ago
  Nobody knows its long term effect on the body. Especially if you were asymptomatic.
  - feanaro 6y ago
    Your response is phrased in a way that all the meaning lies in the exact definition of what you mean by "knows". There is certainly evidence that there are long-term effects. Example: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.20.20215863v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.20.20215863v...
  - henearkr 6y ago
    This huge uncertainty is in favor of avoiding taking the risks, rather than the other way.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Put another way: Nobody knows of any long term effect on the body.
- cheph 6y ago
  > This is a virus with bad long-term effects on the body. In what percentage of people who get COVID-19 are there bad long-term effects? What other conditions did the people get bad long term effects have? How does these numbers compare with other diseases? Would appreciate citations.
  - 3np 6y ago
    We don't know. Which is why it's preferred to play it safe, in that regard.
  - henearkr 6y ago
    Damage to the heart, the brain, even for mild or asymptotic cases. My references are previous posts on HN or on phys.org as you can easily search it. As you said there are scarce data yet, but the risks are scary. In these conditions, it's obvious one should avoid relying on a herd immunity induced by the virus.
    - cheph 6y ago
      > My references are previous posts on HN or on phys.org as you can easily search it. And you could cite a claim you are making. Without numbers it is hard to say if this is a good basis for decisions.
      - henearkr 6y ago
        The statistics are in the making, and researchers discover more illness mechanisms each day. As I said, we are in the presence of a huge risk and there is no "reassuring numbers" anywhere to counterbalance that. As one reference on the risks I'm speaking of, here is an article about the action of the virus on the nerve cells: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-we-know-so-far-about-how-covid-affects-the-nervous-system/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-we-know-so-f... By the way, between "relying on virus-induced herd immunity" and just keeping safe with mask and waiting for the vaccine to come, why the rush to get the virus?? There is a risk, there is the possibility to wait it over. So why just not do that and wait the safe solution?
celticninja 6y ago
Given that immunity from infection is currently questionable your suggestion doesn't make sense. The reason the findings mentioned in this article are important is because the immune response seems to be stronger than that seen in people that have been infected and recovered. So this vaccine would be better at creating herd immunity than just allowing everyone to get infected. At the same time vaccinations will have a reduced impact on people than actually catching the virus would. There is a difference between the level of illness experienced by those who are vaccinated Vs those who get infected, so more old people will die as a result of infection than would die as a result of vaccination. So no, it would not be better for healthy adults and kids to get it in Q2 2020. Also how do you propose that you only infect the healthy adults and kids?
- rimliu 6y ago
  How is immunity from infection questionable? We had 43 million cases and about a dozen or so reinfections. Not sure if confirmed reinfections reach the double digits yet.
  - graeme 6y ago
    So studies of other coronaviruses show immunity lasted 6-12 months. We’re a but early to see mass reinfections. That said, my guess would be normal reinfections would be less severe, more like a cold. There have been some severe reinfections but any reinfection under six months suggests something atypical in the immune response. Also SARS-Cov-1 produced a longer immune response so that may happen here. But lifelong sterilizing immunity seems pretty unlikely based on what we know so far. The vaccines aren’t aiming at sterilizing immunity actually, their goal is to greatly lower the severity of the infection.
    - rimliu 6y ago
      Studies also show that the immunity for original SARS (the close relative) lasts many years.
      - 6y ago
LatteLazy 6y ago
Why would old people get sick from the vaccine? If we let everyone get it in Q2 2020, millions would have died when we ran out of ventilators.
- mav3rick 6y ago
  Not supporting the OP's assertions, but vaccines have some timid / less potent form of the virus.
  - roman030 6y ago
    Imagine throwing your phone at the wall and it shatters into 1000 pieces. Now try calling someone with one of these pieces.
  - ourcat 6y ago
    A certain amount of 'reactogenicity' is expected with most vaccines. ie: "expected" adverse reactions.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Thanks, I guess people do get mild flu after the flu vaccine so it would make sense for it to be the same.
- toolz 6y ago
  The implication that we even slowed the trajectory isn't well established. It's likely, but not proven. Let's not get ahead of ourselves by pretending there's evidence millions would have died when there's not even a strong correlation between mandates (as defined by the Oxford stringency index database) and reduced death. and nowhere that I'm aware of came close to running out of ventilators. New York, one of the hardest hit places in the world may have used a third of their available ventilators. They used around 1/2 of the ventilators they reported available to them in 2015 so it wasn't even close to being the limiting factor in healthcare.
- umanwizard 6y ago
  > If we let everyone get it in Q2 2020, millions would have died when we ran out of ventilators. How do you explain countries like Belarus, Serbia and Sweden, or parts of the US like South Dakota, where no or very lax measures were taken but what you describe didn’t happen? In fact, is there any evidence that this happened anywhere, or is it all just conjecture based on modeling?
lazzurs 6y ago
It’s super easy to make those decisions as an abstract mathematical problem. It is another when someone puts your family in front of you and asks you to roll the dice. As an abstract mathematical problem if somehow herd immunity could be achieved without a vaccine then it sounds like a fine idea. The fact is that immunity after infection does not last long enough to achieve significant enough immunity to get to a useful herd immunity. This of course is what all the medical experts understand which is why Europe is going through lockdowns and Putin has been hiding in a bunker. There have been strict lockdowns in China and most other major governments have taken some sort of similar response, even Sweden eventually. There is almost nothing all of these governments have ever agreed on so universally. Don’t expect a reply justifying my comment on HN with robust data, I have better things to do with my time like play in a park.
im3w1l 6y ago
I was considering bug chasing and then isolating. I regret not doing so.
gnfargbl 6y ago
That option was apparently actively considered by the UK Government's scientific advisory group, but rejected on the basis that it would not actually be possible to prevent transmission from less-vulnerable groups to more-vulnerable groups. Reference: https://archive.is/43ir5 https://archive.is/43ir5
jmull 6y ago
> Wouldn't it have been better if healthy kids and adults caught it in q2 2020? No. We have one population. There's no way to segment it to allow people at low risk to catch the virus without also allowing people at high risk to get it. How do you think it could work otherwise?

glotgizmo 6y ago

(In the UK) Young healthy adults and kids live with old/unhealthy/frail parents due to the enormous financial difficulty of leaving home.

jedimastert 6y ago
And in the US too

henearkr 6y ago

This is a virus with bad long-term effects on the body. Not a good idea to catch it just to get immune.

rimliu 6y ago
Nobody knows its long term effect on the body. Especially if you were asymptomatic.
- feanaro 6y ago
  Your response is phrased in a way that all the meaning lies in the exact definition of what you mean by "knows". There is certainly evidence that there are long-term effects. Example: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.20.20215863v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.20.20215863v...
- henearkr 6y ago
  This huge uncertainty is in favor of avoiding taking the risks, rather than the other way.
- anoncake 6y ago
  Put another way: Nobody knows of any long term effect on the body.
cheph 6y ago
> This is a virus with bad long-term effects on the body. In what percentage of people who get COVID-19 are there bad long-term effects? What other conditions did the people get bad long term effects have? How does these numbers compare with other diseases? Would appreciate citations.
- 3np 6y ago
  We don't know. Which is why it's preferred to play it safe, in that regard.
- henearkr 6y ago
  Damage to the heart, the brain, even for mild or asymptotic cases. My references are previous posts on HN or on phys.org as you can easily search it. As you said there are scarce data yet, but the risks are scary. In these conditions, it's obvious one should avoid relying on a herd immunity induced by the virus.
  - cheph 6y ago
    > My references are previous posts on HN or on phys.org as you can easily search it. And you could cite a claim you are making. Without numbers it is hard to say if this is a good basis for decisions.
    - henearkr 6y ago
      The statistics are in the making, and researchers discover more illness mechanisms each day. As I said, we are in the presence of a huge risk and there is no "reassuring numbers" anywhere to counterbalance that. As one reference on the risks I'm speaking of, here is an article about the action of the virus on the nerve cells: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-we-know-so-far-about-how-covid-affects-the-nervous-system/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-we-know-so-f... By the way, between "relying on virus-induced herd immunity" and just keeping safe with mask and waiting for the vaccine to come, why the rush to get the virus?? There is a risk, there is the possibility to wait it over. So why just not do that and wait the safe solution?

celticninja 6y ago

Given that immunity from infection is currently questionable your suggestion doesn't make sense. The reason the findings mentioned in this article are important is because the immune response seems to be stronger than that seen in people that have been infected and recovered. So this vaccine would be better at creating herd immunity than just allowing everyone to get infected. At the same time vaccinations will have a reduced impact on people than actually catching the virus would. There is a difference between the level of illness experienced by those who are vaccinated Vs those who get infected, so more old people will die as a result of infection than would die as a result of vaccination. So no, it would not be better for healthy adults and kids to get it in Q2 2020. Also how do you propose that you only infect the healthy adults and kids?

rimliu 6y ago
How is immunity from infection questionable? We had 43 million cases and about a dozen or so reinfections. Not sure if confirmed reinfections reach the double digits yet.
- graeme 6y ago
  So studies of other coronaviruses show immunity lasted 6-12 months. We’re a but early to see mass reinfections. That said, my guess would be normal reinfections would be less severe, more like a cold. There have been some severe reinfections but any reinfection under six months suggests something atypical in the immune response. Also SARS-Cov-1 produced a longer immune response so that may happen here. But lifelong sterilizing immunity seems pretty unlikely based on what we know so far. The vaccines aren’t aiming at sterilizing immunity actually, their goal is to greatly lower the severity of the infection.
  - rimliu 6y ago
    Studies also show that the immunity for original SARS (the close relative) lasts many years.
    - 6y ago

LatteLazy 6y ago

Why would old people get sick from the vaccine? If we let everyone get it in Q2 2020, millions would have died when we ran out of ventilators.

mav3rick 6y ago
Not supporting the OP's assertions, but vaccines have some timid / less potent form of the virus.
- roman030 6y ago
  Imagine throwing your phone at the wall and it shatters into 1000 pieces. Now try calling someone with one of these pieces.
- ourcat 6y ago
  A certain amount of 'reactogenicity' is expected with most vaccines. ie: "expected" adverse reactions.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Thanks, I guess people do get mild flu after the flu vaccine so it would make sense for it to be the same.
toolz 6y ago
The implication that we even slowed the trajectory isn't well established. It's likely, but not proven. Let's not get ahead of ourselves by pretending there's evidence millions would have died when there's not even a strong correlation between mandates (as defined by the Oxford stringency index database) and reduced death. and nowhere that I'm aware of came close to running out of ventilators. New York, one of the hardest hit places in the world may have used a third of their available ventilators. They used around 1/2 of the ventilators they reported available to them in 2015 so it wasn't even close to being the limiting factor in healthcare.
umanwizard 6y ago
> If we let everyone get it in Q2 2020, millions would have died when we ran out of ventilators. How do you explain countries like Belarus, Serbia and Sweden, or parts of the US like South Dakota, where no or very lax measures were taken but what you describe didn’t happen? In fact, is there any evidence that this happened anywhere, or is it all just conjecture based on modeling?

lazzurs 6y ago

It’s super easy to make those decisions as an abstract mathematical problem. It is another when someone puts your family in front of you and asks you to roll the dice. As an abstract mathematical problem if somehow herd immunity could be achieved without a vaccine then it sounds like a fine idea. The fact is that immunity after infection does not last long enough to achieve significant enough immunity to get to a useful herd immunity. This of course is what all the medical experts understand which is why Europe is going through lockdowns and Putin has been hiding in a bunker. There have been strict lockdowns in China and most other major governments have taken some sort of similar response, even Sweden eventually. There is almost nothing all of these governments have ever agreed on so universally. Don’t expect a reply justifying my comment on HN with robust data, I have better things to do with my time like play in a park.

im3w1l 6y ago

I was considering bug chasing and then isolating. I regret not doing so.

gnfargbl 6y ago

That option was apparently actively considered by the UK Government's scientific advisory group, but rejected on the basis that it would not actually be possible to prevent transmission from less-vulnerable groups to more-vulnerable groups. Reference: https://archive.is/43ir5 https://archive.is/43ir5

jmull 6y ago

> Wouldn't it have been better if healthy kids and adults caught it in q2 2020? No. We have one population. There's no way to segment it to allow people at low risk to catch the virus without also allowing people at high risk to get it. How do you think it could work otherwise?