15 ms·

Its important to keep studies like this in mind when talking with people who refuse to take the vaccine because they "already had COVID". In a very real sense,

• mxxc 5y ago
  it is a scandal, especially considering the amount of non-immunised people at risk in the rest of the world. i fall in that category (recovered) and i would even pay to give my vaccines away.
  • Hashemm 5y ago
    Didn't realize anti-vaxxers would be on this site...
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • rantwasp 5y ago
      they are everywhere. they have facebook phds in vaccines and public health along with a masters in selection bias.
  • kiba 5y ago
    It is not being used by people who should get said vaccine here in the states, and it is questionable if we even have the logistics to enable it. I supposed even if the logistics is questionable, we should try to distribute it to people who are actually going to use it.
    • mxxc 5y ago
      yeah. obviously mine is a half provocation because shipping "two vaccines" to "one person" isn't feasible considering temperature etc., but if countries had the balls (which they don't) they should take a bit of a U-turn and allow bulks of unused vaccines, perhaps even asking the people "are you sure you don't want to get vaccinated this year? y/n", to get shipped elsewhere once they reach a feasible number.
• IAmGraydon 5y ago
  Comparing it to an amputation is beyond ridiculous. If you have to make leaps of logic like this, you know your argument is extremely weak.
  • briefcomment 5y ago
    Ok, doctors would not administer steroids for long term use for minor pain, that would be unethical and highly dangerous (except they do, from first hand experience)
    • BrianOnHN 5y ago
      Or prescribe antibiotics for potentially viral infections (they do...)
    • bradleyy 5y ago
      This is the tu quoque logical fallacy.
  • 015a 5y ago
    You're right; its a ridiculous comparison. The risks of amputation are relatively well-known and understood. The risks, especially long-term, of mass, imperfect vaccination, using an entirely brand new development technology; not well known. Not understood. Are there long-term, rare side-effects of the vaccine we don't know about? Will the imperfect nature of the vaccine and its rollout cause wider evolution of vaccine-resistant coronaviruses? We don't know. Its a ridiculous comparison because one of these things is dangerous; the other has unquantified risk. That's why "First, Do No Harm" is such an important foundation of medical ethics. We are dealing with systems more complex than you can even imagine; between the human body, multi-human interactions, and planet-scale resource allocation during a pandemic. There is a LOT we don't know. This doesn't mean you shouldn't get vaccinated. I have. Many people should. The benefits are well-known and understood; they're pretty strong. But it does mean, maybe there's a middleground we need to find which doesn't involve demonizing and ostracizing the people who choose not to. We should be better at understanding each-other, and understanding how dangerous unknown risks can be, especially when we're put into a position of making decisions out of fear.
• mercora 5y ago
  how easy is it to test for these antibodies for a layman? could people actually easily get tested prior to considering a vaccination?
  • 542458 5y ago
    The test is easy, but has a relatively high false positive rate. It also may use up lab resources that could be put to other uses. The other wrinkle (and possibly the most important one) is that we don’t want to create a system where antivaxxers have an incentive to deliberately infect themselves and/or others.
    • krona 5y ago
      > The test is easy, but has a relatively high false positive rate. The FDA approved Roche serology test has a specificity greater than 99.8% and sensitivity of 100% (14 Days post-PCR confirmation) https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2020-05-03.htm https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2020-05-03.htm I wouldn't say 0.02% is a particularly high FP rate.
      • rubatuga 5y ago
        I think GP is saying that people who are no longer sick or infected, such as a month later, show false lositives
      • 542458 5y ago
        I was under the impressing that the Roche test was an outlier, and that most other tests do not match that. Most other tests have issues with cross reactivity with common cold antibodies.
  • briefcomment 5y ago
    It's available and getting cheaper pretty quickly. Hopefully others can chime in, seems like a promising path to take.
  • lazyjones 5y ago
• echelon 5y ago
  The vaccine is less dangerous than flying in an airplane. It can boost your immunity even further. (Every boost to immune recognition, recruitment, and proliferation decreases the odds of infection and spread. You need to understand how the system works, and that takes at least three months of study.) This anti-science meme is turning us into yelling cavemen. If you don't understand the science, please educate yourself before speaking out against it.
• deanclatworthy 5y ago
  As far I’m aware this is an American thing. I’m from Finland (no vaccine pass yet) but travelling in Germany/Austria right now. They have the concept of 3G (don’t ask me to translate) but basically you can’t eat, drink or stay anywhere without either a vaccine, recovery or negative test. There is a pop up antigen test facility about 100m from the restaurant where anyone can go get a quick negative result and go do their thing for a set period of time. I’m conflicted on this given the inaccuracy of the antigen tests. I’m currently sat in a restaurant typing this message, and have been served food and drink and yet to be asked to verify my EU certificate of vaccination. So your mileage may vary.
  • ithkuil 5y ago
    Most of the pushback I hear here (Italy) about the ability to just get tested as an alternative to vaccine certification is the cost. It's perceived as a tax on the freedom to not vaccinate.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • deanclatworthy 5y ago
      I just looked it up. Where I'm staying the tests are 57e, you do it yourself, and get a result within 20mins which is valid for 24h. That definitely is a high cost.
      • mejutoco 5y ago
        Probably as a tourist it is different? I live in Germany and you can get an antigen test for free per day. They are valid for 24 hours, so it costs 0€ To get tested for any event.
        • ithkuil 5y ago
          In Italy they are not free, not even if you're a resident. I think the system is explicitly designed to create inconvenience for those who decide not to vaccinate. IIRC Germany has a strong culture on trying to not force things on people; not sure if that's really true, but it's certainly brought as an example here in Italy.
• treeman79 5y ago
  I had covid in November. Have had it again the past week and a half. It was a rough time the first time, but not as bad as when I had pneumonia. Now, A constant mild sore throat and a lot of bad headaches. Otherwise not much.
• raphlinus 5y ago
  I know this thread is catnip for the antivax contingent that reliably appears, but this argument has several problems. First, our vaccines provide a stronger immune response than infection, as has been well documented by now[1]. Vaccination on top of prior infection boosts the response[2]. Second, the harm from the vaccine is minimal, and comparing it with an amputation is ridiculous (in spite of the large number of superstitious people who believe otherwise). There are subtle arguments to be made for adjusting vaccination (one shot is almost certainly enough) when prior infection is documented, but from a public health perspective it's simple enough: pretty much everybody (over 12 until trials complete) should get vaccinated, and if they did, illness and death would decrease dramatically. [1]: https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/ https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera... [2]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782139 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782139
  • peteradio 5y ago
    [1] is not generally supportive of your very broad statement. You must qualify you statement with some indication of this stated limitation: "carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein"
    • _Microft 5y ago
      I couldn't put the quote into context properly, so in case you are also wondering, here is the full quote: "The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an infection.", excerpt from the article
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    • raphlinus 5y ago
      It is one datapoint among many, but I found it interesting because it is based on careful biological experimentation and directly compares immune response from vaccination and prior infection. Another relevant quote: "Importantly, the vaccine-elicited antibodies targeted a broader range of places on the RBD than those elicited by natural infection." This is not an intuitively obvious result. But, since it was asked, here are more studies that support the broader point: * https://www.contagionlive.com/view/immune-response-from-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-is-more-robust-than-natural-infection https://www.contagionlive.com/view/immune-response-from-mrna... describes a study directly addressing the question, and with impressive results. * https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/covid-19-vaccine-generates-immune-structures-critical-for-lasting-immunity/ https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/covid-19-vaccine-generates-i... didn't directly compare against prior infection, but this is discussed briefly and there is strong support in favor of protection from vaccines. * https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/marty-makary/92434 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/marty-makary/92434 is a discussion with a virologist (not peer reviewed science).
• asddubs 5y ago
  interesting, over here in germany if you (provably) had covid you don't have to get vaccinated to enter places requiring that or a test
  • l33tman 5y ago
    I think the EU timeout for the proved infection is 6 months unfortunately. So someone in the EU decided that a COVID infection's protection only lasts 6 months.
    • querez 5y ago
      In the absence of long-term studies, isn't it prudent to assume it has a shell-life? And if so, who's to say 6 month isn't a sensible heuristic?
• rvp-x 5y ago
  I am under the impression that a lot of places consider recovered cases as equivalent to fully vaccinated.
• nicoffeine 5y ago
  > In a very real sense, if natural antibodies are durable, persistent, and effective; the vaccine is an unnecessary medical procedure. Doctors would not cut off your legs for no reason; that would be unethical. Taking a vaccine is not equivalent to cutting off someone's legs. It's an accepted practice in every modern society to prevent unnecessary pain, suffering, and death. > Yet, we have an increasing number of venues, workplaces, and events which are requiring proof of vaccination to participate. This is forcing both people who already have antibodies, and even people who can't make antibodies (e.g. immunocompromised, solid organ transplant, etc), to undergo a medical procedure for little to no benefit. Getting a COVID vaccine is the only way you can help someone who is immunocompromised since they can't take it. They have to rely on the rest of us to provide relative herd immunity. Even if you think you have antibodies, getting a vaccine is the best way to make sure, and allows health officials to make informed decisions based on vaccination rates. Why would you think there's no benefit to preventing painful sickness and death for your neighbors? I have zero tolerance or patience left for fair weather patriots who refuse wear a mask or get a shot because maintaining their political identity is more important than doing their best to make sure a fellow citizen doesn't die alone in a COVID ward. It's a staggering display of cowardice and selfishness. Grow the fuck up. Wear a mask. Get the shot. It's the very least you can do.
  • krona 5y ago
    > and allows health officials to make informed decisions based on vaccination rates. Barely. Forecasting is being done on antibody levels at least in countries that are running good real-time surveillance studies. Hence why Israel/Germany/UK are deploying third shots and many other countries will do the same.
• pfisherman 5y ago
  I think other comments may have pointed this out already, but there are several problems with this line of reasoning. When deciding on whether or not to administer a procedure or treatment, one must consider the balance of potential harms and benefits, while accounting for uncertainty. In this particular case, the potential for harm from the vaccine is quite low (this is borne out by the data), and the benefits are mostly unknown. The potential harms of NOT taking the vaccine are mostly unknown (data is still coming in), and the potential benefit of that course of action is quite low. So it seems like the positive expected value / utility decision here is for them to get the vaccine. In your comment you use the analogy of a procedure with a much different risk / benefit profile. So that does not really hold up. A much better analogy would be something like routine screening for prostate cancer once you pass a certain age.
  • ithkuil 5y ago
    > In this particular case, the potential for harm from the vaccine is quite low (this is borne out by the data), Which is why a common anti-vax argument is sow doubt about the harmful effects. I noticed a few options: a) conspiratorial: "the government is lying about side harm" b) anecdotal: "I personally know at least 3 people who couldn't walk after the vaccine. Do you call me a liar?" c) hyper-skepticism: "how can we know if it long term side effect? Yes it's proven safe for X months, but what about in Y month? what about Y years?" I found it hard to defuse such positions with "just more data". They seem to be memes (crafted or just evolved?) that resist quite strongly to data.
    • peteradio 5y ago
      It seems to me very reasonable to worry about long-term outcomes when we are talking about vaccinating every man woman child. Maybe its got precedence but damn if its not worrying, and honest skepticism ought to be treated with respect not derided.
      • ithkuil 5y ago
        I'm not deriding the honest worry. Nobody can know with certainty anything about the future. I'm worrying about the paralyzing effects of a meme that says that since it's technically possible for an adverse affect to happen at an arbitrary point in the future, we cannot consider an option to curb the effects of a known problem we have right now. Often I'm accused of dismissing the possibility of adverse effects like if I knew with certainty that they can't happen. How could I? Nobody knows. That's not the point. The point is to make a guess and take balanced risks. We take risks all the time, about everything. What's so special about vaccines that causes such widespread reaction? Is it because people feel forced to take them? Is it something about the way they work that triggers such a reaction in people that often (anecdotally) don't care about things like effects of second hand smoke? (Genuine questions)
• lamontcg 5y ago
  A vaccination isn't cutting your legs off. First of all, if you've recovered from COVID then you've fought off the whole virus before, not just the spike RNA. You shouldn't have issues with the vaccine. Secondly, you could have had mild COVID and if you were "young" (under 30) then your innate immune system may have been sufficient to clear the virus and you may not have formed a lasting humoral immune memory. Third, you may have had a false positive with a high Ct. And Fourth, many people never got tested, and people really cannot self-diagnose (particularly the people in the USA who think they caught it in late 2019). If you've caught COVID just take the vaccine, you've already had the spike RNA in your body once. You're like an open water swimmer worried they might drown in the pool. Of course I really suspect that this argument is being made in bad faith so people have a backdoor to avoid vaccination and to undermine vaccination mandates. And the harm caused by the virus spreading vastly exceeds the putative harm done by an "unnecessary procedure" -- just look at Florida right now.