6 ms·

I'm getting tired of all the anti-vaccine pessimism. Don't listen to the fearmongering. There may have been a handful of outliers in the world who got reinfect

I'm getting tired of all the anti-vaccine pessimism. Don't listen to the fearmongering. There may have been a handful of outliers in the world who got reinfected, but there's data showing that immunity seems to last for over six months in 100 out of 100 people tested[1]. There have also been multiple studies showing that some people exposed to the original SARS virus in ~2003 have cross-immunity to COVID. There's also evidence of pre-existing immunity from other coronaviruses[2]. When the vaccine becomes available to you, get vaccinated. In the meantime, wear a mask and keep being careful, but we have legitimate reasons to be hopeful. We have two vaccines showing efficacy, more to come in the following months. There's also a synthetic antibody therapy that just got FDA emergency approval[3]. This is going to save a lot of lives. All of the serious data points to the fact that this is going to make a huge dent in the number of new cases and fatalities. [1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.01.362319v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.01.362319v1 [2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/11/05/science.abe1107 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/11/05/scie... [3] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-monoclonal-antibody-treatment-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...

throwaway201103 6y ago
I have zero interest in a vaccine for a disease that I am 99.5% likely to recover from in a few days. Granted, if I were 80 years old with comorbidities I might be more interested. I'll see how I feel when I reach that point in life.
- camhenlin 6y ago
  You need to get vaccinated to do your part in preventing those hypothetical 80 year olds you speak of from getting sick
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    No, their vaccine protects them.
    - folli 6y ago
      Some people can't get vaccinated due to health reasons or they don't mount a proper immune response. They need you to do your part to establish herd immunity.
  - tomp 6y ago
    I'm in neither of those populations but I really don't see why any healthy 18-25 year old would want to life a single finger for a 60-80 year old, after the latter left the former with a broken economy, overpriced education system and an unaffordable housing market. I mean, it shouldn't be on the younger (inherently politically weaker) generation to re-establish inter-generational solidarity... (You can see the effects of this even pre-vaccine - youngsters partying while oldsters arguing for lock-downs.)
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      As a 24 year old, because I'm not a shitty human who externalizes my anger at the world on a demographic who might have caused me some issue before. Taking a vaccine isn't intergenerational solidarity. It's just ethically good. That shouldn't be politicized.
    - tunesmith 6y ago
      That confuses generalities with specifics. The 60-80 year old that you infect might be someone who agrees with you and worked very hard to oppose those things.
    - phaemon 6y ago
      I suspect the number one reason is that most 18-25 year olds actually love their parents and grandparents, and don't want to see them dying an agonizing death from covid. Clearly this doesn't apply to everyone, but I reckon it applies to most.
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  It's not about you, it's about the people you will infect during those few days.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    I'll be at home in bed, infecting nobody. And yes, I do wear a mask in public. I doubt their efficacy, but's not such an imposition that I will give it the benefit of the doubt. Injecting something of unproven safety into my body is an entirely different matter.
    - jtaillon 6y ago
      Maybe, if you're unlucky. In all likelihood, you'll be asymptomatic and spreading it to a bunch of other people without realizing it (which is most of the reason we're in this mess). Then those people do the same, get sick, and/or die.
    - scythe 6y ago
      >I'll be at home in bed, infecting nobody. If that were possible, the flu would be eradicated already. You only develop symptoms for most transmissible respiratory infections after you've already been contagious for a day or so.
    - cycrutchfield 6y ago
      >Injecting something of unproven safety into my body is an entirely different matter. Well I've got great news for you then! These vaccines will have completed trials for both safety and efficacy by the time they are approved.
    - tunesmith 6y ago
      You'd have probably infected people, including high-risk people, before you experienced symptoms. If you're vaccinated, you ~won't be infecting people.
- maxander 6y ago
  Even assuming the estimate of risk given there is correct, and even ignoring the evidence for persistent damage not infrequently arising from non-lethal cases, it’s really odd to me how cavalier people are about that 0.5% risk of death. That’s 1 in 200, so it’s not huge, sure- but if you gave me the choice between running that risk or taking a shot, I know which I would go for. It would even be too high a price for a night out with my friends. Like, a 1-in-200 chance of losing all the hopes you had for your life and instead dying an agonizing death in some overcrowded ICU, doesn’t sound like it should be treated lightly.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    That's assuming I get infected. The positivity rate around here is under 5%, so factor that in.
    - thombat 6y ago
      Other than herd immunity (from vaccination or natural incidence) what do you expect will durably protect you from infection? The positivity rate a year ago was zero, in a year's time it's most unlikely to still be 5%.
      - meatspaceping 6y ago
        if the infection rate is 5% for a year, how many people got infected?
- esoterica 6y ago
  Would you get on a plane if it had a 1 in 200 chance of crashing? Why do people keep talking about a 0.5% chance of death as if it's minuscule?
- acdha 6y ago
  Think about the people who are old, immune compromised, sensitive to something in the vaccine, etc.: vaccines protect them when enough people in the community are vaccinated that the virus cannot spread. You personally may not be at high risk but it’s still non-zero and your decision to get vaccinated will help people who for whatever reason cannot.
colechristensen 6y ago
Here be dragons. Many topics shouldn’t be political issues, and a vaccine is one of them. Some people have very little information and take absolute positions on things and try to spread their faith, but discussion here isn’t that.
- bamboozled 6y ago
  I feel the same, really disappointed in the attitude on this thread. It’s actually putting me off HN altogether as I’m realising how much it’s changed and not for the better.
andrewflnr 6y ago
No one benefits from painting vaccines as invincible magic. We don't want to give the actual crazies any more fuel then we have to. Realism is important for restoring the "credibility of science" after the flailing contradictory guidance we got from official sources early in the pandemic.
- tachyonbeam 6y ago
  I don't think anyone with any amount of scientific background thinks that these first-generation vaccines will eradicate COVID, but IMO the actual data says immunity is likely to be very good and last for 6+ months, probably more. Then, in 2022, we'll get new vaccines that account for new COVID mutations, and we'll make another big dent in the number of cases again.
  - ksenzee 6y ago
    "Eradicate" is a very strong word. We haven't eradicated measles or diphtheria, either. I think everyone would be pretty happy to get covid-19 down to the same incidence as measles.
    - emn13 6y ago
      I hope we have a better chance of eradicating covid, than we do measles. A first factor making measles harder to eradicate is that it can strikes fairly early in life, and covid appears to affect young children much less and not to be as transmissable either (studies show schools are a source of transmission, but that's largely 15+ yro teenages AFAICT). Transmission in necessarily vaccinated very young children won't be as much of an issue. Secondly, measles is much more infectious. People that come in close contact with contagious measles cases almost always get infected (90%), whereas with covid there are clearly many cases in which people get lucky. Over the course of the cov19 disease it may be likely you'll infect people, but each short exposure by itself is a fairly low risk; unlike with measles. And that helps, because it means that with measles you'd expect to need a much higher degree of vaccination to achieve herd immunity that with a less contagious virus like cov19. Intuitively: when a case does slip through it's much more likely to explode and infect many others when the virus is measles, than when it's cov-19. Of course, just because it's an easier problem - hopefully - than measles eradication doesn't mean it's achievable. But at least it's plausibly achievable. (There are warning signs too; like animal reservoirs which are a factor for cov-19 but not measles, so it's not all roses.)
benzible 6y ago
I posted the parent comment and I agree with almost all of what you say here. If you read the thread I linked to, it's overwhelmingly positive ("exceedingly encouraging") and in no way can be characterized as "anti-vax" or fearmongeriing. It makes a specific point about the length of efficacy being unknown with mRNA vaccines, which are a new approach. I think this is worth acknowledging. It's certainly not a reason not to take the vaccine, nor does the thread imply that it is. In the worst case, the vaccine should still have a tremendous positive impact.

throwaway201103 6y ago

I have zero interest in a vaccine for a disease that I am 99.5% likely to recover from in a few days. Granted, if I were 80 years old with comorbidities I might be more interested. I'll see how I feel when I reach that point in life.

camhenlin 6y ago
You need to get vaccinated to do your part in preventing those hypothetical 80 year olds you speak of from getting sick
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  No, their vaccine protects them.
  - folli 6y ago
    Some people can't get vaccinated due to health reasons or they don't mount a proper immune response. They need you to do your part to establish herd immunity.
- tomp 6y ago
  I'm in neither of those populations but I really don't see why any healthy 18-25 year old would want to life a single finger for a 60-80 year old, after the latter left the former with a broken economy, overpriced education system and an unaffordable housing market. I mean, it shouldn't be on the younger (inherently politically weaker) generation to re-establish inter-generational solidarity... (You can see the effects of this even pre-vaccine - youngsters partying while oldsters arguing for lock-downs.)
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    As a 24 year old, because I'm not a shitty human who externalizes my anger at the world on a demographic who might have caused me some issue before. Taking a vaccine isn't intergenerational solidarity. It's just ethically good. That shouldn't be politicized.
  - tunesmith 6y ago
    That confuses generalities with specifics. The 60-80 year old that you infect might be someone who agrees with you and worked very hard to oppose those things.
  - phaemon 6y ago
    I suspect the number one reason is that most 18-25 year olds actually love their parents and grandparents, and don't want to see them dying an agonizing death from covid. Clearly this doesn't apply to everyone, but I reckon it applies to most.
cycrutchfield 6y ago
It's not about you, it's about the people you will infect during those few days.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  I'll be at home in bed, infecting nobody. And yes, I do wear a mask in public. I doubt their efficacy, but's not such an imposition that I will give it the benefit of the doubt. Injecting something of unproven safety into my body is an entirely different matter.
  - jtaillon 6y ago
    Maybe, if you're unlucky. In all likelihood, you'll be asymptomatic and spreading it to a bunch of other people without realizing it (which is most of the reason we're in this mess). Then those people do the same, get sick, and/or die.
  - scythe 6y ago
    >I'll be at home in bed, infecting nobody. If that were possible, the flu would be eradicated already. You only develop symptoms for most transmissible respiratory infections after you've already been contagious for a day or so.
  - cycrutchfield 6y ago
    >Injecting something of unproven safety into my body is an entirely different matter. Well I've got great news for you then! These vaccines will have completed trials for both safety and efficacy by the time they are approved.
  - tunesmith 6y ago
    You'd have probably infected people, including high-risk people, before you experienced symptoms. If you're vaccinated, you ~won't be infecting people.
maxander 6y ago
Even assuming the estimate of risk given there is correct, and even ignoring the evidence for persistent damage not infrequently arising from non-lethal cases, it’s really odd to me how cavalier people are about that 0.5% risk of death. That’s 1 in 200, so it’s not huge, sure- but if you gave me the choice between running that risk or taking a shot, I know which I would go for. It would even be too high a price for a night out with my friends. Like, a 1-in-200 chance of losing all the hopes you had for your life and instead dying an agonizing death in some overcrowded ICU, doesn’t sound like it should be treated lightly.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  That's assuming I get infected. The positivity rate around here is under 5%, so factor that in.
  - thombat 6y ago
    Other than herd immunity (from vaccination or natural incidence) what do you expect will durably protect you from infection? The positivity rate a year ago was zero, in a year's time it's most unlikely to still be 5%.
    - meatspaceping 6y ago
      if the infection rate is 5% for a year, how many people got infected?
esoterica 6y ago
Would you get on a plane if it had a 1 in 200 chance of crashing? Why do people keep talking about a 0.5% chance of death as if it's minuscule?
acdha 6y ago
Think about the people who are old, immune compromised, sensitive to something in the vaccine, etc.: vaccines protect them when enough people in the community are vaccinated that the virus cannot spread. You personally may not be at high risk but it’s still non-zero and your decision to get vaccinated will help people who for whatever reason cannot.

colechristensen 6y ago

Here be dragons. Many topics shouldn’t be political issues, and a vaccine is one of them. Some people have very little information and take absolute positions on things and try to spread their faith, but discussion here isn’t that.

bamboozled 6y ago
I feel the same, really disappointed in the attitude on this thread. It’s actually putting me off HN altogether as I’m realising how much it’s changed and not for the better.

andrewflnr 6y ago

No one benefits from painting vaccines as invincible magic. We don't want to give the actual crazies any more fuel then we have to. Realism is important for restoring the "credibility of science" after the flailing contradictory guidance we got from official sources early in the pandemic.

tachyonbeam 6y ago
I don't think anyone with any amount of scientific background thinks that these first-generation vaccines will eradicate COVID, but IMO the actual data says immunity is likely to be very good and last for 6+ months, probably more. Then, in 2022, we'll get new vaccines that account for new COVID mutations, and we'll make another big dent in the number of cases again.
- ksenzee 6y ago
  "Eradicate" is a very strong word. We haven't eradicated measles or diphtheria, either. I think everyone would be pretty happy to get covid-19 down to the same incidence as measles.
  - emn13 6y ago
    I hope we have a better chance of eradicating covid, than we do measles. A first factor making measles harder to eradicate is that it can strikes fairly early in life, and covid appears to affect young children much less and not to be as transmissable either (studies show schools are a source of transmission, but that's largely 15+ yro teenages AFAICT). Transmission in necessarily vaccinated very young children won't be as much of an issue. Secondly, measles is much more infectious. People that come in close contact with contagious measles cases almost always get infected (90%), whereas with covid there are clearly many cases in which people get lucky. Over the course of the cov19 disease it may be likely you'll infect people, but each short exposure by itself is a fairly low risk; unlike with measles. And that helps, because it means that with measles you'd expect to need a much higher degree of vaccination to achieve herd immunity that with a less contagious virus like cov19. Intuitively: when a case does slip through it's much more likely to explode and infect many others when the virus is measles, than when it's cov-19. Of course, just because it's an easier problem - hopefully - than measles eradication doesn't mean it's achievable. But at least it's plausibly achievable. (There are warning signs too; like animal reservoirs which are a factor for cov-19 but not measles, so it's not all roses.)

benzible 6y ago

I posted the parent comment and I agree with almost all of what you say here. If you read the thread I linked to, it's overwhelmingly positive ("exceedingly encouraging") and in no way can be characterized as "anti-vax" or fearmongeriing. It makes a specific point about the length of efficacy being unknown with mRNA vaccines, which are a new approach. I think this is worth acknowledging. It's certainly not a reason not to take the vaccine, nor does the thread imply that it is. In the worst case, the vaccine should still have a tremendous positive impact.