3 ms·

"It can't be." What!? This is an extraordinary claim that you state with zero evidence. It relies entirely on the naturalistic fallacy. Not only is it possibl

"It can't be." What!? This is an extraordinary claim that you state with zero evidence. It relies entirely on the naturalistic fallacy. Not only is it possible for vaccines to confer better immunity but there are clear ways to test this empirically, which studies certainly have, like this one: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... It looks at reinfection rates of unvaxxed people who had COVID vs vaccinated people.

thethirdone 5y ago
I believe the "It can't be" is not a statement about whether natural immunity is better. Instead I believe it to mean "It cannot be evidence that vaccines provide better immunity than natural infections".
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  I agree on this interpretation. The article referenced by GP cites the same paper mentioned in a different comment, see that thread for some additional discussion and citations that provide counter evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28108039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28108039. In summary, there is currently no scientific consensus that vaccines provide 'better' immunity compared to natural infection. There is evidence that they induce similar but subtly different immune responses.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    Nobody claimed there is currently "scientific consensus" (but there is currently a lot of scientific evidence). What we're taking issue with is the unfounded claim that 'natural immunity' must be better than vaccine induced immunity.
- mike00632 5y ago
  The idea that vaccines provide more antibodies that fight a wider variety of COVID can indeed suggest that vaccines create better immunity. The writer here makes a firm denial of this and then uses their denial to offer a fatalistic take on what is possible to show about vaccines with this paper. Of course, outside of this paper there are very simple studies that have been conducted which contradict the bias illustrated here.

thethirdone 5y ago

I believe the "It can't be" is not a statement about whether natural immunity is better. Instead I believe it to mean "It cannot be evidence that vaccines provide better immunity than natural infections".

criticaltinker 5y ago
I agree on this interpretation. The article referenced by GP cites the same paper mentioned in a different comment, see that thread for some additional discussion and citations that provide counter evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28108039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28108039. In summary, there is currently no scientific consensus that vaccines provide 'better' immunity compared to natural infection. There is evidence that they induce similar but subtly different immune responses.
- mike00632 5y ago
  Nobody claimed there is currently "scientific consensus" (but there is currently a lot of scientific evidence). What we're taking issue with is the unfounded claim that 'natural immunity' must be better than vaccine induced immunity.
mike00632 5y ago
The idea that vaccines provide more antibodies that fight a wider variety of COVID can indeed suggest that vaccines create better immunity. The writer here makes a firm denial of this and then uses their denial to offer a fatalistic take on what is possible to show about vaccines with this paper. Of course, outside of this paper there are very simple studies that have been conducted which contradict the bias illustrated here.