5 ms·

I'm not vaccinated. Why? Because before I had the opportunity to receive the vaccine, I had an antibody test for the virus, revealing I have a standard deviatio

by krona 5y ago

I'm not vaccinated. Why? Because before I had the opportunity to receive the vaccine, I had an antibody test for the virus, revealing I have a standard deviation more antibodies (after 6 months) for the virus than the average person does after 2 doses of the Pfizer vaccine (and ~3 months). There isn't conclusive data (AFAIK) on the relationship between antibody levels and immunity for this particular virus, but it is not unlikely that people like me have better immunity than the average vaccinated person. I would've thought an inclusive company like Google would take such basic immunological nuances in to account when stigmatising their own employees?

fsund 5y ago
Goog is not "inclusive". That's fascist language to divide/conquer those that oppose the leftist agenda.
standardUser 5y ago
Natural immunity comes in a lot of variations, and sometimes its even so weak that reinfection can occur. Immunity by vaccine is comparatively very predictable and by nearly all accounts at least as strong as most natural immunity, with plenty of studies finding it to be stronger. So, that is part of the concern. Additionally, antibody tests are not fully reliable, whereas being vaccinated is never going to be "wrong". It's simply you are or you aren't, with no chance of false positives.
wonnage 5y ago
Get the vaccine, dude. You are not a special snowflake.
fragmede 5y ago
You skip over the fact that it means you caught covid (either through malfeasance or ignorance) and were lucky enough to have survived, you admit to your ignorance about the relationship between antibody levels and immunity, you don't even mention which antibody test you took (which belies an indifference or an ignorance for the details of immuniology and our collective ignorance about Covid), and then want us to believe that you're a) smarter than Google, and b) more immune than most people to Covid. I'm glad that it didn't kill you, and that you're not suffering from the effects of long covid. That shit is no joke! Did you have rigorous scientific testing done before you caught covid so that you knew it wouldn't affect you? The awkward truth is that we know very little about how immunity works for covid. We knew enough to build a vaccine and have a year's worth of scientific papers about it and the disease, but the analogy is the difference between knowing enough to build a ship to sail the ocean find the Americas in the 1400s, and Google maps satellite imagery on smartphones. Ethics review boards know it's amoral to intentionally expose people to virus, even ones we've vaccinated (Even with informed consent society is just too warped for that choice to be made ethically, given the risks.), which means we're not sure, at the edges, how to test for how protective the vaccine is, because, especially with the delta variant becoming more prevalent, we don't know. This isn't an argument against taking the vaccine. Get the vaccine. The broad empirical data says it's hugely protective. But if it turns out between testing for IgM and IgG, B-cells and T-cells (and the three types of them) that we're using the wrong kind of test to test for protectivity, and that by the same fluke of chance that whatever antibody test you took that you have higher levels of makes you more vulnerable than the rest of the population, Google isn't willing to accept the liability as your hypothetical employer that they knowingly gave you covid and killed you/someone in your family (children in eligible to be vaccinated, or an unvaccinated elder) through gross negligence that could be argued over in a court of law. I'm not remotely an immunolgist, but I've read enough wikipedia after testing negative for IgM antibodies for covid despite having it, to say that the human immune system is ridiculously complex, and (in part, thanks to our lack of universal healthcare) we lack the scientifically rigorous data to know what we're looking for. The measles vaccine has something like 0.02% of non-responders. That is, a tiny number of people who get the vaccine don't develop antibodies for measles. That's something we know and can account for and deal with and handle. But with covid, we're still not even sure what to test for!
- krona 5y ago
  > But with covid, we're still not even sure what to test for! For natural immunity, reinfection incidence (e.g. two positive PCR tests more than 100 days apart) would suffice? There is robust data on this now. And yes I realise the Google mandate is not about immunity per-se but the relationship between transmission rates and immunity, but this link applies to both natural and vaccine induced immunity.
13years 5y ago
There is a good bit of data backing up that natural immunity is likely superior. https://www.biznews.com/health/2021/06/28/covid-19-vaccine-immunity https://www.biznews.com/health/2021/06/28/covid-19-vaccine-i...
- mrzimmerman 5y ago
  Ah yes, the venerable journalists at “biznews” hard at work. Honestly, why do you think anyone here would take the advice of some random Wordpress site? Also, natural immunity is variable whereas a vaccine gives standard coverage without having to measure everyone to see if they meet some sort of baseline natural immunity level. Additionally, vaccines don’t run the risk of killing you compared to an active Covid infection which very much can! The proposition of natural immunity over fast, effective, safe vaccines is preposterous on its face.
  - 13years 5y ago
    Because it is Marc Girardot and based on your response you didn't read it anyway.
    - mrzimmerman 5y ago
      Oh, I wouldn't let you get off that easy with posting one of dozens of hokey Wordpress links. I figured you'd try to hide behind the idea that "no one reads the articles that show the truth!" or some such nonsense, and here we are. First, you're referring to Marc Girardot who, according to his own bio on the PANDA site as having a "MBA from INSEAD, as well as Ms. in Economics and Business" and no expertise or training in immunology in any way shape or form. PANDA, for the record, self describes as "replacing flawed science with good science and for retrieving liberty and prosperity from the clutches of a dystopian 'new normal'". PANDA and it's members are so biased (and at times, under-qualified as in Marc's case), it's absurd that you are on Hacker News telling people otherwise. But back to the "article" you posted. It begins with an anecdote about a totally real email from a totally real friend regretting taking the vaccine. Shortly after that it features a great table with "data" with no source provided of any kind for the numbers strewn about. Then we see a link to a WSJ opinion column where the authors state that we learn more about the efficacy of medicine as we use it real world scenarios (not against the vaccine, just saying our opinions change over time) and a link to another opinion column published in the BMJ by a group of 27 clinicians, researchers, and consumer advocates who think the FDA should slow down vaccine roll out. Not all that compelling, and definitely not a call to stop vaccination as I'm sure Marc would have liked. Next we see a graph with "credit: Nature" under it and a few sentences in to the next paragraph is a link to a nature article, but no specifics on where the data came from. Again, I guess specifying sources isn't that important! I read the rest but I find Marc to be under-qualified by his own admission and the article to favor pushing an opinion over useful, factual science.
lamontcg 5y ago
So get the vaccine. Its free and you know it can't hurt you and the antibodies you've already got will work.

by krona 5y ago

fsund 5y ago

Goog is not "inclusive". That's fascist language to divide/conquer those that oppose the leftist agenda.

standardUser 5y ago

Natural immunity comes in a lot of variations, and sometimes its even so weak that reinfection can occur. Immunity by vaccine is comparatively very predictable and by nearly all accounts at least as strong as most natural immunity, with plenty of studies finding it to be stronger. So, that is part of the concern. Additionally, antibody tests are not fully reliable, whereas being vaccinated is never going to be "wrong". It's simply you are or you aren't, with no chance of false positives.

wonnage 5y ago

Get the vaccine, dude. You are not a special snowflake.

fragmede 5y ago

You skip over the fact that it means you caught covid (either through malfeasance or ignorance) and were lucky enough to have survived, you admit to your ignorance about the relationship between antibody levels and immunity, you don't even mention which antibody test you took (which belies an indifference or an ignorance for the details of immuniology and our collective ignorance about Covid), and then want us to believe that you're a) smarter than Google, and b) more immune than most people to Covid. I'm glad that it didn't kill you, and that you're not suffering from the effects of long covid. That shit is no joke! Did you have rigorous scientific testing done before you caught covid so that you knew it wouldn't affect you? The awkward truth is that we know very little about how immunity works for covid. We knew enough to build a vaccine and have a year's worth of scientific papers about it and the disease, but the analogy is the difference between knowing enough to build a ship to sail the ocean find the Americas in the 1400s, and Google maps satellite imagery on smartphones. Ethics review boards know it's amoral to intentionally expose people to virus, even ones we've vaccinated (Even with informed consent society is just too warped for that choice to be made ethically, given the risks.), which means we're not sure, at the edges, how to test for how protective the vaccine is, because, especially with the delta variant becoming more prevalent, we don't know. This isn't an argument against taking the vaccine. Get the vaccine. The broad empirical data says it's hugely protective. But if it turns out between testing for IgM and IgG, B-cells and T-cells (and the three types of them) that we're using the wrong kind of test to test for protectivity, and that by the same fluke of chance that whatever antibody test you took that you have higher levels of makes you more vulnerable than the rest of the population, Google isn't willing to accept the liability as your hypothetical employer that they knowingly gave you covid and killed you/someone in your family (children in eligible to be vaccinated, or an unvaccinated elder) through gross negligence that could be argued over in a court of law. I'm not remotely an immunolgist, but I've read enough wikipedia after testing negative for IgM antibodies for covid despite having it, to say that the human immune system is ridiculously complex, and (in part, thanks to our lack of universal healthcare) we lack the scientifically rigorous data to know what we're looking for. The measles vaccine has something like 0.02% of non-responders. That is, a tiny number of people who get the vaccine don't develop antibodies for measles. That's something we know and can account for and deal with and handle. But with covid, we're still not even sure what to test for!

krona 5y ago
> But with covid, we're still not even sure what to test for! For natural immunity, reinfection incidence (e.g. two positive PCR tests more than 100 days apart) would suffice? There is robust data on this now. And yes I realise the Google mandate is not about immunity per-se but the relationship between transmission rates and immunity, but this link applies to both natural and vaccine induced immunity.

13years 5y ago

There is a good bit of data backing up that natural immunity is likely superior. https://www.biznews.com/health/2021/06/28/covid-19-vaccine-immunity https://www.biznews.com/health/2021/06/28/covid-19-vaccine-i...

mrzimmerman 5y ago
Ah yes, the venerable journalists at “biznews” hard at work. Honestly, why do you think anyone here would take the advice of some random Wordpress site? Also, natural immunity is variable whereas a vaccine gives standard coverage without having to measure everyone to see if they meet some sort of baseline natural immunity level. Additionally, vaccines don’t run the risk of killing you compared to an active Covid infection which very much can! The proposition of natural immunity over fast, effective, safe vaccines is preposterous on its face.
- 13years 5y ago
  Because it is Marc Girardot and based on your response you didn't read it anyway.
  - mrzimmerman 5y ago
    Oh, I wouldn't let you get off that easy with posting one of dozens of hokey Wordpress links. I figured you'd try to hide behind the idea that "no one reads the articles that show the truth!" or some such nonsense, and here we are. First, you're referring to Marc Girardot who, according to his own bio on the PANDA site as having a "MBA from INSEAD, as well as Ms. in Economics and Business" and no expertise or training in immunology in any way shape or form. PANDA, for the record, self describes as "replacing flawed science with good science and for retrieving liberty and prosperity from the clutches of a dystopian 'new normal'". PANDA and it's members are so biased (and at times, under-qualified as in Marc's case), it's absurd that you are on Hacker News telling people otherwise. But back to the "article" you posted. It begins with an anecdote about a totally real email from a totally real friend regretting taking the vaccine. Shortly after that it features a great table with "data" with no source provided of any kind for the numbers strewn about. Then we see a link to a WSJ opinion column where the authors state that we learn more about the efficacy of medicine as we use it real world scenarios (not against the vaccine, just saying our opinions change over time) and a link to another opinion column published in the BMJ by a group of 27 clinicians, researchers, and consumer advocates who think the FDA should slow down vaccine roll out. Not all that compelling, and definitely not a call to stop vaccination as I'm sure Marc would have liked. Next we see a graph with "credit: Nature" under it and a few sentences in to the next paragraph is a link to a nature article, but no specifics on where the data came from. Again, I guess specifying sources isn't that important! I read the rest but I find Marc to be under-qualified by his own admission and the article to favor pushing an opinion over useful, factual science.

lamontcg 5y ago

So get the vaccine. Its free and you know it can't hurt you and the antibodies you've already got will work.