10 ms·

Vaccination is more comprehensive than natural immunity though. We've already see that the BNT vaccine offers a higher degree of protection against variants th

Vaccination is more comprehensive than natural immunity though. We've already see that the BNT vaccine offers a higher degree of protection against variants than natural immunity, or indeed other vaccines. Reinfection studies from a few months ago demonstrated that natural immunity is roughly 50% effective for people aged 65 or over. And that's the age group most likely to experience negative outcomes from covid-19, it's seems prudent to go ahead and recommend vaccinations for this age group, regardless of previous infection. Then there's the elephant in the room: so few people have been tested that it really difficult to know who has had it. Anyone who has had a cold in the past 18 months is going to claim they had covid, regardless of whether they tested positive or not. It would be easier to vaccinate this group than it would be to perform a test for covid antibodies. If covid hadn't become a political shit-show, I'd agree with you. But at this point, I think it's a little irresponsible to society to give anyone an out on getting vaccinated.

YawningAngel 5y ago
It's quite irresponsible to try and coerce people who don't need treatment to accept it as well
- munk-a 5y ago
  No it isn't - it's providing unified and clear guidance on vaccination. I'm up in Canada where vaccine hesitancy has been almost unheard of[1] and those who refuse to get vaccinated, excepting those that can't for medical reasons, are ostracized for their overtly selfish actions. The US, though, has a real problem with disinformation being accepted more readily than fact. I am fine with the theory of having a nuanced and technical discussion of vaccine efficacy but I think it's pretty clear that that discussion can't happen in the public forum due to continued calls that hydroxychloroquine is an equally valid solution. 1. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=total_vaccinations&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=CAN~USA&Metric=Vaccine+doses https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    As a Canadian who emigrated to the US, the attitude you so proudly display--ostracizing people who aren't convinced of a novel vaccine with zero long-term safety information--makes me so happy I live here.
    - peter422 5y ago
      How sure are you about the long term effects of COVID?
      - sjwalter 5y ago
        Oh, not very sure at all. However, I may have already have it, so that cat's out of the bag (and invalidates any reason to get the vaccine anyways). Or I may never get it. Taking the vaccine, which includes three brand new medical technologies and has not completed phase3 trial, guarantees me taking that risk. I am extremely healthy, have a great diet, and as a farmer, I get plenty of time soaking up vitamin D, a potent inhibitor of covid. The vaccine doesn't make any sense for me to take. Normal disclaimer, I am a huge, huge believer in vaccines, and am probably more vaccinated (due to travel and other circumstances) than nearly everyone reading this comment. I believe bar none vaccines are the medical technology that has saved the most lives in our history as a species. Big fan of vaccines. But, vaccines are made safe via clinical trials and long-term studies. These vaccines are wholly new in type, were rushed to market, have liability waivers for those pushing them, and to make things even worse, the manufacturers aren't collecting followup data about adverse events in any kind of systematic way (as they would during a normal phase4). So it seems to me the playbook that gave us generations of safe vaccines that saved billions of lives has been thrown out the window. No thanks!
        lame-robot-hoax 5y ago
        You have no clue what you are talking about and have spouted multiple falsehoods in your comment, especially in regards to phase 3 trials not being completed (they are) and that they are not conducting follow ups for an extended period of time (again, they are). https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-vaccines-idUSL1N2M70MW https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-vaccines-idU... They have filed for full authorization for a reason. These vaccines have enough data backing their safety for full approval.
- mustacheemperor 5y ago
  What you are saying is contrary to the tack already taken towards the eradication of other endemic lethal diseases and pests such as River Blindness. That example has been eradicated through much of the Americas primarily by treating everyone in an affected community with ivermectin, which has the effect of slowing transmission from all of the infected individuals in the community (including those who don't know they are infected) and does not harm uninfected individuals. With attitudes like the one you are quoting, it would never work.
reducesuffering 5y ago
> Then there's the elephant in the room: so few people have been tested that it really difficult to know who has had it. Anyone who has had a cold in the past 18 months is going to claim they had covid, regardless of whether they tested positive or not. There are many many people who have confirmed positive COVID tests. At least excuse those. >I think it's a little irresponsible to society to give anyone an out on getting vaccinated. I think it's irresponsible to require people who most science points to having better protection naturally, to also have to get a vaccine. From this point of view, 2 dose vaccine still have less protection than natural antibodies. Maybe we should require the vaccinated to keep getting more vaccine shots until science shows they're at par with natural antibodies, lowest hanging fruit and all...
- croes 5y ago
  The vaccine also leads to natural antibodies. It only contains the spike protein so the immune system can safely develop the antibodies.
- mulmen 5y ago
  > Maybe we should require the vaccinated to keep getting more vaccine shots until science shows they're at par with natural antibodies, lowest hanging fruit and all... Why would we do that when the vaccines are safer than the actual disease and effective enough to contain the spread?
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    There are repeated calls demanding people with antibodies should be required to get a vaccine shot. However most available science points towards natural immunity having slightly better protection. Is there any science whatsoever showing that antibodies + 1 more shot is better than 2 vaccine shots + 1 additional shot? If antibodies are still more protected than 2 shots, how do we know which option provides the most marginal protection? You could easily make the case that since the current science is showing natural antibodies have more comprehensive protection than 2 dose shots, that maybe our first priority should be giving 2 dosers a third shot?
timr 5y ago
> Vaccination is more comprehensive than natural immunity though. We've already see that the BNT vaccine offers a higher degree of protection against variants than natural immunity, or indeed other vaccines. I have seen no evidence for either of these claims, other than assertions. If you have some, please provide citations.

YawningAngel 5y ago

It's quite irresponsible to try and coerce people who don't need treatment to accept it as well

munk-a 5y ago
No it isn't - it's providing unified and clear guidance on vaccination. I'm up in Canada where vaccine hesitancy has been almost unheard of[1] and those who refuse to get vaccinated, excepting those that can't for medical reasons, are ostracized for their overtly selfish actions. The US, though, has a real problem with disinformation being accepted more readily than fact. I am fine with the theory of having a nuanced and technical discussion of vaccine efficacy but I think it's pretty clear that that discussion can't happen in the public forum due to continued calls that hydroxychloroquine is an equally valid solution. 1. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=total_vaccinations&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=CAN~USA&Metric=Vaccine+doses https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
- sjwalter 5y ago
  As a Canadian who emigrated to the US, the attitude you so proudly display--ostracizing people who aren't convinced of a novel vaccine with zero long-term safety information--makes me so happy I live here.
  - peter422 5y ago
    How sure are you about the long term effects of COVID?
    - sjwalter 5y ago
      Oh, not very sure at all. However, I may have already have it, so that cat's out of the bag (and invalidates any reason to get the vaccine anyways). Or I may never get it. Taking the vaccine, which includes three brand new medical technologies and has not completed phase3 trial, guarantees me taking that risk. I am extremely healthy, have a great diet, and as a farmer, I get plenty of time soaking up vitamin D, a potent inhibitor of covid. The vaccine doesn't make any sense for me to take. Normal disclaimer, I am a huge, huge believer in vaccines, and am probably more vaccinated (due to travel and other circumstances) than nearly everyone reading this comment. I believe bar none vaccines are the medical technology that has saved the most lives in our history as a species. Big fan of vaccines. But, vaccines are made safe via clinical trials and long-term studies. These vaccines are wholly new in type, were rushed to market, have liability waivers for those pushing them, and to make things even worse, the manufacturers aren't collecting followup data about adverse events in any kind of systematic way (as they would during a normal phase4). So it seems to me the playbook that gave us generations of safe vaccines that saved billions of lives has been thrown out the window. No thanks!
      - lame-robot-hoax 5y ago
        You have no clue what you are talking about and have spouted multiple falsehoods in your comment, especially in regards to phase 3 trials not being completed (they are) and that they are not conducting follow ups for an extended period of time (again, they are). https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-vaccines-idUSL1N2M70MW https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-vaccines-idU... They have filed for full authorization for a reason. These vaccines have enough data backing their safety for full approval.
mustacheemperor 5y ago
What you are saying is contrary to the tack already taken towards the eradication of other endemic lethal diseases and pests such as River Blindness. That example has been eradicated through much of the Americas primarily by treating everyone in an affected community with ivermectin, which has the effect of slowing transmission from all of the infected individuals in the community (including those who don't know they are infected) and does not harm uninfected individuals. With attitudes like the one you are quoting, it would never work.

reducesuffering 5y ago

> Then there's the elephant in the room: so few people have been tested that it really difficult to know who has had it. Anyone who has had a cold in the past 18 months is going to claim they had covid, regardless of whether they tested positive or not. There are many many people who have confirmed positive COVID tests. At least excuse those. >I think it's a little irresponsible to society to give anyone an out on getting vaccinated. I think it's irresponsible to require people who most science points to having better protection naturally, to also have to get a vaccine. From this point of view, 2 dose vaccine still have less protection than natural antibodies. Maybe we should require the vaccinated to keep getting more vaccine shots until science shows they're at par with natural antibodies, lowest hanging fruit and all...

croes 5y ago
The vaccine also leads to natural antibodies. It only contains the spike protein so the immune system can safely develop the antibodies.
mulmen 5y ago
> Maybe we should require the vaccinated to keep getting more vaccine shots until science shows they're at par with natural antibodies, lowest hanging fruit and all... Why would we do that when the vaccines are safer than the actual disease and effective enough to contain the spread?
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  There are repeated calls demanding people with antibodies should be required to get a vaccine shot. However most available science points towards natural immunity having slightly better protection. Is there any science whatsoever showing that antibodies + 1 more shot is better than 2 vaccine shots + 1 additional shot? If antibodies are still more protected than 2 shots, how do we know which option provides the most marginal protection? You could easily make the case that since the current science is showing natural antibodies have more comprehensive protection than 2 dose shots, that maybe our first priority should be giving 2 dosers a third shot?

timr 5y ago

> Vaccination is more comprehensive than natural immunity though. We've already see that the BNT vaccine offers a higher degree of protection against variants than natural immunity, or indeed other vaccines. I have seen no evidence for either of these claims, other than assertions. If you have some, please provide citations.